If you count luck, maybe.
> But what if most billionaires had super-powers of the traditional comic book sort, like x-ray vision or an ability to fly, etc.? That is, what if people with physical super-powers earned billions in the labor market by selling the use of these powers? Would folks be just as eager to tax them to reduce unfair inequality?
Yes, I would.
> But if those few very rich folks had real physical super-powers, we would be a lot more afraid of their simple physical retaliation. They might be very effective at physically resisting our attempts to take their stuff.
Yes, and this is why a lot of superhero movies involve fighting the greedy superpowered villain.
And I would still want to tax Superman.
Because they want to take back what was taken from them.
I want to heavily tax the ultra rich because money is power, and vast inequality in power is undemocratic and just plain dangerous.
I don't really care if somebody buys ten massive yachts. It's annoying and seems wasteful but it's not worth too much of my attention.
But it's another matter if somebody buys politicians, laws, social change. The issue with someone like Elon Musk isn't that he owns a private jet, or even that he owns a rocket company, it's that he bought his way to taking an axe to major parts of our government by pouring unimaginable amounts of money into buying a presidential election.
It's not about grabbing stuff, it's about preventing people from accumulating too much power. The ultra-wealthy should be heavily taxed for the same reason the President shouldn't be given unlimited power to do whatever they want.
When your power is to determine which day the recycling truck is dropping-by, hardly anyone wants to coerce that power. But when it is e.g printing money the calculus is massively different.
I take it you've never encountered a homeowner's association.
Of course, you probably mean to remove their power centers without removing their money. But that doesn't make any sense. Money is power. You can't remove the power from a billionaire and leave them a billionaire.
Money is that power.
You cannot have billionaires and them not be immensely, structurally powerful.
That's the entire point of capitalism, that resources, including labor, be directed by those with capital.
Believing you can have a single human being in control of a non-negligible percentage of all resources of a country, and they wont somehow be actually powerful or influential is moronic.
Taking the power away from billionaires literally IS taking their money.
That’s the stupidest thing I’ve ever read. Power is power. Members of the Communist Party in the USSR were as wealthy as their subjects, their power differential was enormous.
There are certainly sometimes unusual abilities in a positive sense, but the common case likely falls closer to having an unusual degree of sociopathy. It is unclear to me how else one could view the state of perfectly solvable human suffering in the world and continue to prioritize accumulating wealth over all else, moreover and overwhelmingly at the cost of being party to the suffering itself. Indeed, I suspect having such callous disregard for your fellow person is prerequisite to encountering these unfathomable sums.
When people with an intact capacity for empathy come into huge amounts of money I think it's far more common to give a large proportion of it away (say, Jane Street workers have a culture of doing this). And thus you only stay 'comfortably' wealthy, rather than accumulating so much that it distorts society around your singular existence.
The comparison to _literal super heroes_ from comic books definitely made me roll my eyes
My problem with billionaires is that their gains are in part from exploitation. I just don't believe that one person can actually produce billions of dollars of value all by themselves. They extract that value from other people and our whole system is structured to promote this.
There are probably millions people who could have been Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates or Elon Musk or whoever. A million people with the right skills who maybe were born a few years too late or didn't have the right connections or just didn't have rich enough parents. It's a little too "winner take all" for my taste. And then those few winners end up having disproportionate affect on politics and issues that affect us all. It's just not a great system.
There isn't a level of competence or ability that shifts the answer to the morality of power. There's not an earning threshold you can cross that entitles you to own a fiefdom or a level of genius that grants you moral right to dictate how others use your inventions. We create democracy and grant everyone an equal vote in matters that impact their lives. The economy gets layered on top to allocate resources efficiently. If the economy is deciding that some people live like kings and some like serfs, then we've failed to construct an economy that lives up to liberal values.
The other major assumption is that billionaires are rich because of something they did or are good at doing, better than anyone else could in their position. There is no challenge to this assumption in the text.
This belies a deep disconnect with reality, and an unwillingness to confront the idea that maybe excessive inequality is caused by too much concentrated power changing the rules to further concentrate power. Taxation is just one mechanism to combat this tendency; another way is the guillotine.
If you own shares of $MCD, you can get wealth taking share prices and shares owned.
But if own a McDonald's franchise, how do you measure the 'wealth' of it? Annual profit? Last x years profit, averaged?
The most common opposition to replacing income tax with a sales tax is saying it is regressive because "poor" people will need to spend a larger portion of their income on taxes than a wealthy person. Ok, so don't food or primary residence. A poor person isn't buying a $300,000 car or a second home. The best part is that if somebody is having a hard time getting by, every dollar they earn can be saved instead of giving Uncle Sam a short term loan until tax day.
For most people their ability to earn is by far their largest asset. You can kind of get a feel for how difficult it is to bootstrap into generational wealth if you think about the math -- it takes time to replace that earnings portion of your own balance sheet, and even more to well replace it; a lot has to go right in the interim.
This seems to only be true for people whose income entirely comes from their wealth, rather than their labor. The math doesn't math for someone on the other extreme end of the spectrum who has zero savings or investments and obtains all his income from labor: To him, a N% wealth tax = 0% income tax for all N. Those with -some- savings are somewhere in the middle.
It is a very sneaky way to argue that a wealth tax should be as across-the-board unpopular as a large income tax increase. But Graham's math is only applicable to those flush with investments and with relatively small salaries from labor, so a wealth tax is only unpopular to that particular group.
This is one of those “check your privilege” moments and one where it is best to look at the median and not just the average when talking about household wealth in the US. Between 57% and 67% of U.S. adults are estimated to live paycheck to paycheck. They aren’t saving it, they’re going into debt because the only local grocery store is a Dollar General and it’s just a clever name nowadays.
If so, the problem likely isn’t the paycheck.
If we moved to a wealth tax I'd be the first in line to pay it. So long as everyone else had to pay it too.
But nothing in the article implies that these wealth taxes apply to most people. The argument is that a 1% wealth tax is equivalent to a 20% income tax because, under certain assumptions, the government gets the same amount of money.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
Are you saying that billionaires are actually realizing capital gains to afford yachts, private jets, and mansions?
Here’s billionaire Tim Cook last month:
https://m.investing.com/news/insider-trading-news/apple-ceo-...
"1 % of wealth-holders (above $14 million in 2022)"
1-2% of $14,000,000 is $140,000 to $280,000 a year. The median personal income is $45,140. They are benefiting untaxed to the tune of 3-6 times the median American income.
1-2% of 100 million is 1-2 million dollars a year untaxed benefit (44x median income). That is substantial. That their wealth is growing so fast that that is fairly small to them and makes the median American income seem small doesn't sell me.
How is an untaxed benefit of 3-44X the median income insignificant? I would love to benefit annually by that 'insignificant' amount. By this argument why should we not then exclude all economic income below $140,000 to $2,000,000 from taxation? Since it's 'insignificant'. Oh, right, because it's only insignificant in the context of 'they are so obscenely rich it's insignificant to them'.
If that is what is being targeted, then why not actually target that. Apply some percent taxation on the current value of all assets transferred because of death. And, if they want, only apply it to estates over some X threshold in size.
Performing the taxation at time of probate makes the valuation easy (unlike a 'wealth tax') because the valuation could be one of "value at time of death" or "value at time of transfer". And, if the ultra wealthy are using this angle to avoid taxes, then this taxes some of that transferred value.
Of course, just like with subscriptions, to the politicians a yearly wealth tax is far more valuable than a one time tax on the total value of the estate.
That already exists. The rate is 40% of the asset value.
Productivity comes from labor AND assets though. You need the farmer and the tractor. Why would we create a tax system that encourages people to divorce themselves from having a stake in the means of production?
However, if your goal is to increase stakeholdership, how would a policy that explicitly disincentivizes that behavior fix anything?
In any case, taxes do not go into a black hole, no matter how much the right likes to encourage this self-serving fiction. Taxes generally get spent down the economic ladder and move people up the economic ladder, increasing their marginal propensity to save. People must have money if you want them to save money.
Even more concretely: reversing the policies which dissolved the middle class might reasonably be expected to restore the middle class, or at least slow their demise.
But the point isn't to increase stakeholdership so much as to stop privileging stakeholders with very low effective tax bills relative to mere workers, which means that there's a lot less cause for concern about those workers not owning their means of production
Even assuming this is true, then what? Do you think the average joe is going to suddenly buy alphabet or meta stocks because bill ackman or ken griffin sold their shares to buy bigger yachts?
All I pointed out was that at the margin, HNW individuals needing to liquidate 1% of their portfolio every year (and also HNW individuals not being disincentived from realising their capital gains as under the current system) actually works in favour of people trying to buy shares in means of production (by increasing liquidity and lowering prices), as well as obviously against wealth concentration.
There are arguments against wealth taxes that are actually credible, like those concerning capital flight, but this thread seems like a magnet for bad ones. Like, AMZN valuation dropping slightly at the margin from Bezos at al's forced divestment of portions of their stock actually being a bad thing for the economy as a whole is a defensible position; the utopian scenario involving delivery drivers ending up with a decent sized stake in Amazon somehow being impeded by wealth taxes isn't....
To whom are the selling? The buyers would be only those that can make efficient enough returns to offset this tax due to their existing systemic advantages, like economies of scale or regulatory lobbying. This would accelerate consolidation.
> But the point isn't to increase stakeholdership so much as to stop privileging stakeholders with very low effective tax bills relative to mere workers
At this point I think there is ample evidence that policy in this country does not move forward without the consent of these so-called privileged stakeholders. If you take that as a given, why would you support handing these people an economic machine gun to point at your future self?
You don't need "systemic advantages" to earn more than 1% average annual return on your wealth. And strangely enough, not paying tax on their wealth accumulation whilst everyone else pays it on their earnings and trades doesn't reduce prospective buyers' advantages...
> At this point I think there is ample evidence that policy in this country does not move forward without the consent of these so-called privileged stakeholders. If you take that as a given, why would you support handing these people an economic machine gun to point at your future self?
Using pretty phrases like "economic machine guns" doesn't somehow make an argument of the form that wealth taxes somehow make wealthy people more powerful actually make sense.
Or people who aren't wealthy enough to have to pay it.
This is exactly why economic models broadly show that taxing capital assets makes workers worse off in the long run. An abundance of capital means that workers will be more productive on the margin, so their wage will be higher. This extends to the capital-income taxation involved in income taxes: pure labor taxes or consumption taxes are inherently more efficient. There are countervailing effects (taxing capital income works as an effective way of indirectly taxing the unearned value of resource-like assets, or of idiosyncratic skills that happen to correlate with holding more capital-like assets) but they can only roughly justify the current income tax arrangement, not some extra tax on assets.
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Oops!
You deride the weak justification for trickle down economics, then proceed to link wtfhappenedin1971.com, a site that tries to argue for the reintroduction of the gold standard through a gish-gallop of random charts?
I'm not perfectly aligned with gold bug politics. Their faith in the Kindleberger world is misplaced and their tax aversion can make them useful to my opponents, but at the same time they tend to take the Cantillon Pump and Balance of Payments mechanisms seriously while my traditional allies do not.
No, I don't mind borrowing their charts. Why? Do you have a better go-to link for The Wedge?
It's not. The (in)famous epi.org is flawed for all sorts of reasons, from excluding noproduction/supervisory workers (the highest compensated ones!), to excluding non-wage compensation (eg. benefits), to different deflators for compensation vs productivity. If you adjust for all of that, the chart is unremarkable.
https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economic-issues-watch/gr...
That incidentally, is the exact problem with the site. It presents a barrage of charts, without regard to relevance or rigor, and tries to persuade through sheer volume alone. Yet, if you scrutinize any of them, it quickly falls apart. That's probably why the site doesn't even bother justifying the charts, or even state the thesis, for that matter.
As for "gish gallop," right back atcha: those billionaire-funded think tanks firehose a lot of nonsense into the economic discourse (and curricula!)
Nearly all good jobs are now concentrated in dense city cores, in the ever-dwindling set of large cities. This drives up the _cost_ of having these jobs. For example, the median ratio of rent to income is rising: https://www.moodyscre.com/insights/cre-trends/housing-afford...
And this "cost of work" is not only monetary but also psychological and physical (it takes longer to commute). You also don't get nearly the same amount of job security as your parents.
From the epi.org chart - it indeed misses that a lot of stuff is now cheaper. Clothes, electronics, toys and even appliances - they are so cheap that we now treat them as disposable!
300 years of thinking has established that copyright is the best way to sustain ongoing creation of knowledge and thought, yet the same crowd seem pretty fine gutting that 300 years of understanding because of their judgement that their desired use case for today outweighs the cost to society of lost future knowledge creation, so they seem plenty happy to ignore established thought when it benefits them.
A wealth tax of 1% is equivalent to an income tax of 20% on capital gains.
Unless their spouse is still alive. In the US, assets' cost bases are reset when a spouse dies. That is the main way that rich people avoid capital gains taxes. I'd much prefer simply stopping that cost basis reset instead of implementing a wealth tax.
Neither of these would really work against the people you actually want it to work against.
If you don't have a basis reset then they just do a transaction that has the same effect, e.g. create a new corporation owned by the recipient and then have it repeatedly enter into slightly favorable transactions with the one owned by the donor until the new one has all the assets, or any of a hundred other things.
If you try to do a wealth tax then their assets end up in another country under whatever arrangement is necessary to give them de facto control but not formal ownership.
The best way to solve the "buy, borrow, die" thing is actually a consumption tax because then borrowing money in order to spend it doesn't avoid the tax.
Of course people will try to cheat taxes, but they'll try to cheat any form of tax: income, capital gains, inheritance taxes, etc. People are good to try and evade taxes regardless of the tax mechanism.
Consumption taxes are regressive: a sales tax is a flat tax that taxes a billion on their $10 latte the same as a poor person. Consumption also doesn't scale linearly with wealth: most billionaires don't consume 1000x as much as a millionaire.
The core problem remains the same: consumption does not scale with wealth. If we limit taxes go a handful of goods and services, then demand is just going to shift to something else. Consumption taxes give billionaires the option to drastically reduce their tax burden by consuming less. The lifestyle of someone with a $20 million net worth is not that much worse than someone with a $2 billion net worth.
You croak, your heirs become the beneficiaries of the trust. Rinse, repeat.
Re: estate taxes - almost no ultra rich pays them, even without surviving wife. According tom Garry Cohn (former big kahuna at Goldman Sachd and former treasury something or other in the first Trump admin) only morons pay estate taxes : https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/only-morons-pay-the-estate-t...
IIRC this is part of how they avoid taxes in general. Penalties don't hurt enough for the ones who do eventually face them.
The beneficiaries then set up their own tax avoidance schemes. With the effect only rich people with poor tax planning skills, to quote Gary Cohn again, end up pay the estate 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.
It already exists in the form of property taxes, which are quite unpopular.
So I spend 30 minutes to set up an LLC and then transfer my assets to that LLC. Now, I don't hold the assets; I hold a stake in a privately-held company.
Ultimately, the solution you come up with needs to be at least somewhat airtight; otherwise, it just penalizes people who spend less money on tax advisors. The generation of income is a fairly well-defined point where assets change hands and you can apply some quasi-clear rules. Ongoing taxes on the potential to make money are a lot harder. So I buy some gold bars or valuable paintings and stash them in the attic. Gold / Picasso appreciates. How do you tax me on that? Do I submit an inventory of everything I own to the government every year? How does the government check - do they get to rifle through my stuff every December?
And hey, here's a cool one: if my parent owns a company and puts it in their will that it's mine when they die, is that promise an asset I owe taxes on every year? It's clearly worth something: it's potential money down the line.
Let’s do the bog-standard obvious and sane thing and pick a single point in time, once a year and use the value then. Maybe, i don’t know, close of market on the last trading day of the year. At which point it won’t fluctuate again until the new tax year. Then, we can call it “mark to market” because we’re marking the value to the market at a point in time.
Finally, we stop with silly bad faith arguments because fluctuations in stock have been successful taxed for decades. This is how day-traders pay taxes, and it’s not even a little challenging to do.
For an unpopular tax, the property tax is remarkably ubiquitous. Are there really any popular taxes?
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.
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 have a car, you need to pay car insurance. Is that also a tax?
The concept of insurance is independent of mandatory or not. That should be obvious, I wonder why it isn't to you. Maybe your ideology prohibits clear thinking and makes you vote Trump?
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.
The government's monopoly on punitive violence isn't only intended for the peasantry...
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.
> 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.
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.
(Social security and Medicare)
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.
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.
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
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…
Many other businesses that are not large enough to interest the newspaper are moving out as well.
Brilliant.
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.
You're wealthy, or the definition will change to include you. The spice must flow.
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.
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.
If they don't have money then they can't buy elections and aren't insulated from the consequences of their actions.
[1] Note: I don't really think we should literally take all their money. Just enough to reduce some of the power imbalance.
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).
* https://realestatemagazine.ca/do-residential-tenants-pay-pro...
And is some (many?) cases higher rates than owners:
* https://www.renx.ca/renters-often-pay-higher-municipal-taxes...
Obviously people who have retired and based their entire life plan on making that work have many fewer options than those who are still working. You are arguing that nobody can plan for any kind of secure retirement, including you.
Having progressive tax rate might be a better way to discuss, instead of blaming whole points.
I don't think people with savings of $15mil and above (assuming that would be the cutoff) are in danger of going bankrupt in 20 yrs from a 1% wealth tax. Assuming your 3% return, they'd be earning $450,000 a year that wouldn't be touched by the wealth tax.
curious how they came to that number. There's probably plenty of voters willing to cast a vote for $0.5M+ and plenty ready to cast a vote for $100M+. How was the line drawn?
"The top 1%" is a popular target for these schemes because 99% of people might be convinced to support it, since it won't affect them (at least not directly).
[1] https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1212/average-net...
I think your assumptions are off, though; less wealthy people might not be "forced" into investment at all, but given the "opportunity" to pay off debt or increase/diversify consumption. In the end, the important part is the wealth transfer downward, wherever it ends up. No trickle, but you can pump it.
Arguably, there’s a disconnect where the people who lead civic organizations don’t have a great deal in common with the median member. They might be wealthier and generally more plugged in to power structures. They might not support policies that are in the best interest of members they represent, especially people who have a hard time representing themselves.
Anyway, if your goal is to get a policy enacted, it’s not enough for your policy to be theoretically good for the median voter. You need a winning political coalition.
That can be quite a lot of people on HN, and also including FIRE people, so I can see why it's unpopular.
Having your house get ‘too expensive to live in’, in fact, is a classic issue with property taxes, and was happening in California - which is exactly why prop 13 happened. And most of those locations the maximum tax is around 1-3%!
‘Wealth’ is not the same as income, because wealth is potential money, if you can sell - and if you sell, you lose access to it.
A 20% wealth tax would mean any asset which doesn’t earning free cash flow returns of at least 20% a year, or which isn’t appreciating at least 20% a year in a risk free way would be impossible to hold for anyone except the most rich people. And even they couldn’t do it for long.
I can’t think of anything which that realistically describes.
A 20% income tax reduces actual cash in hand to 80% of what you’d otherwise have, which isn’t great. But you still get the actual 80% cash in hand right now, and can use it.
You can’t have ‘80% control/ownership for the year’ of a house in a meaningful way, and especially for people actually using/relying on the asset to live, they can’t find 20% (or in most cases even 5%!) of the value in cash for the asset every year. They’d go bankrupt.
Please read before making replies that don't make sense in context. When I refer to 20% I'm referring the PG's characterization of a 1% wealth tax as an effective 20% income tax, not a 20% wealth tax.
If grandma has $50M in her house and pension, she can afford to pay a tiny tiny tiny fraction of her wealth to make sure her grandkids still have a place to live that's not falling apart.
I think there's no reason why a wealth tax can't be progressive. Just making up numbers here, it could be zero for your first 30 million, and rise to some palpable amount for your first billion.
This would protect granny from being taxed out of her house, and in fact would affect relatively few salary earners.
I'm not overlooking the possibility that such a tax structure could create an effective wealth cap at some level.
The problem in California is that it's very hard to change laws. Likewise in my state, where many aspects of the tax system are constrained by the state constitution.
The biggest personal complaint I have is why should the government be getting more tax money when all they seem to use it for is blowing up random countries in the Middle East and spying on law abiding citizens for whatever random reason.
Labour is what actually creates value in society, let's tax it less and ownership more.
Personally, I see a big benefit of a wealth tax being lowering wealth inequality; even if the money isn't actually used for anything useful. That would at least help prevent the ultra wealthy from being able to unilaterally ruin society.
No, I think what that does is create an effective corporate decimation. No one has a billion in cash that I've ever heard of. When you say "tax the billionaires of their wealth" because this billionaire has $1 billion, you're talking about his shares right? Maybe in one company, maybe across many. Is he supposed to pay that in cash?
How does this even really work? He could try to sell $200 million in stock, I suppose (if that's even legal according to the SEC, though that stuff could be loosened up), but what happens when he only gets $70mil for it because the stock price tanked? Should he sell more, until he comes up with that original 20% of his "billion"?
What if instead, he just gives 20% of the shares to the government, and they get to sell them, would that count? They wouldn't even have to sell them... the government could become the shareholder, until it controlled every corporation out there. The grift and graft would be massive, nothing to go wrong there. CEOs and other top positions basically appointed by whoever gets to be on the Congressional committee. The Democrats no doubt are certain they'll be in control of it, but then they'll be hysterical when it turns out they miscalculated. Could be fun to watch while eating popcorn, at least until there is no more popcorn left because the corporation that distributed popcorn melted down.
Wealth taxes are the domain of angsty teenage marxists and other retarded children.
How much does a wealth tax collect in the US, does anyone know? Does anyone care? Is it that they've identified a need for the government have revenue and devised a fair way of having the entire nation pay for that need, or are they just hoping it will be confiscatory in the most punitive way possible?
Using a wealth tax to nationalize corporations sounds like exactly what we should be doing.
You want Trump and company in charge of it all? Or are we finally back to "the next time Democrats win it will be forever!" wishful thinking? I mean, even if you want to nationalize everything, it's as if you dreamt up the worst possible way to go about doing that so that they've cratered first and started hemorrhaging all their talent in the leadup.
We need a wealth tax, ONLY public financing of elections (no PAC money, no "I'm a billionaire so I can spend as much as I want on myself"), and many other reforms. Nationalizing critical industries and sectors is also something we should be pursuing.
To me, that would seem extremely difficult for Congress to pass a law restricting individual speech in this particular way that would pass First Amendment muster, and I don’t think we should be at “let’s just set aside the Constitution when it clearly says something we don’t like” because I don’t think that ends well in today’s political climate (or any other, but it’s especially bad now).
What's the biggest amount anyone has in treasury bonds or gold? You could easily liquidate a ton of that.
> but what happens when he only gets $70mil for it because the stock price tanked? Should he sell more, until he comes up with that original 20% of his "billion"?
If the stock tanks that much while he's selling, then the company is only worth about $300 million now, and the money he owes drops to $60 million.
Though I don't see why it would tank that much.
Also normal people and the mildly rich and retirement funds and many other big sources of ownership wouldn't be taxed, so I don't see prices actually crashing.
Repeatedly pushing the "destroy the world economy" multiple times per day is most likely not going to be a "one-time thing". But who knows... maybe you're right and economics doesn't work like it has been documented to work by the world's experts for the last 100 years or so.
Valuation hasn’t been tied or related to earnings for top stocks in at least a decade.
It isn’t ’wealth redistribution’.
Removing half or more of market demand isn’t going to be pretty.
Thank god no one is talking about this, then. According to Graham, a 20% wealth tax is equivalent to a 400% income tax.
It is clearly the case if you try to apply the income tax rate as a wealth tax using concrete real world examples.
Even a 3% property tax makes it very difficult for many normal people to own those assets in many real world economic circumstances.
The tax could be made progressive so that it doesn't impact people who can't afford it.
Someone's primary home and vehicle could be omitted from the tax.
A good way to make owning anything unaffordable though! The carve outs would just defacto set a cap for normal people. No more than one house, etc.
You can still own millions and billions of dollars of things, but you'll have to shrink your money pile over time to pay for those things if you don't have a source of income.
The higher the rate, the harder it will be to do.
At some point, only speculators with deep pockets and the desperate with enough cash flow could do it.
But any real wealth tax is going to have exemptions, only apply to wealth above some threshold, and for the wealthy who structure their finances so as to have little or no taxable income, well they end up paying 20% like all the rest of us do.
It's not. That calculation would say that if you have $1000 of wealth and $5 of income your effective tax rate is 220%. It's bad math.
Your conventional income is taxed separately.
A wealth tax sort of stacks with capital gains, but capital gains is way too low anyway.
($1,000 * 1%) + ($5 * 20%) = $11 tax due on $5 income. They are separate taxes but he's expressing them both in terms of an effective income tax rate.
In this case, since you owe more taxes than income you've earned, you'll need to sell off some of your wealth to pay up.
If you have no income at all, but do have wealth, then you get a division by zero error so I do get that it's maybe absurd to frame it this way, but the premise of TFA was "how to convert between a wealth tax and an income tax" and the context is a presumed 5% return on capital.
If that $5 of ""income"" is actually capital gains, then it won't be taxed very highly, and adding another 20% is fine. The discussion of 37% + 4.5% + 20% is misdirection.
If that $5 is honest to goodness income, then on average you're also getting $5 of unrealized capital gains, which means you're not paying $2 on $5, you're paying $2 on $10. Or maybe you realize part of the gains and you're paying somewhere between $2 and $3 on $10. A much smaller impact, and that's only if someone in a medium tax bracket with 20x their income in wealth is even affected by the wealth tax at all.
Graham gets this totally wrong, adding the 20% to 37%+4.75%, which are rates applicable to labor income (and short term capital gains, but those are very rare among the most wealthy Americans). That is such a major error it is hard to take any of the argument seriously.
Edit: Updated account for short term gains.
Illegal and legal immigrants are being completely supported by Uber right now in NYC. If you lived here you would know that this is their primary source of income for many of them.
The gate that previously blocked your ability to disseminate your ideas to a wide audience and create a living off of it has been completely torn down by the billionaires that create platforms like Tiktok. There are scores of people that have made a living off of this, which was virtually impossible before. The barrier to entry to start from grass roots and build a following and then monetize it has been erased.
It's completely banal at this point to just point at billionaires and say they are the problem just because of envy. I wish there was a plugin for it so I can erase it from my consumption.
The premise that billionaires are less efficient than the government at deploying capital to serve society is incongruent with reality, but sure, they are a convenient scapegoat if your heart is poisoned by envy and lack. That's really all it is and it needs to be called out more often because it's a mind virus that is easy to infect others with. Your life is not served by being clouded by envy and lack, and spreading it is detrimental to all consciousness.
There is objectively more paths to success than ever before. Being preoccupied with what you don't have currently and pointing the finger to blame at some boogeyman billionaire is not going to change anything for your personal life. The buck is on the person with the finger to improve their life and take advantage of the opportunities that are presented to them. Spending your time being mad that people have created something society deems worthwhile and are being rewarded for it is spending your time being envious about something that has nothing to do with your own problems.
I think most are.
> The idea that the only way you can incentivize individuals to start companies is to allow them to accumulate so much wealth that they become tiny kings is patently absurd. The world has thousands of companies and founders who happily sustain their businesses without ever reaching this ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.
And how many of those companies and founders have given back to society at the scale that these uber wealthy people have? Entire new economies have been built up.
> ungodly and idiotic level of uber wealth.
This is still just envy. You should try to prove that you're being oppressed by the systems these billionaires have created because we don't have to go very far back to observe when these systems and economies did not exist. I'll remind you that for example, in NYC before Uber, taxi medallions were being sold for over a million dollars and people were going into debt just for the opportunity to drive a cab. If you go far back enough creating a virtual store front to sell your ideas and goods was a gate that was actually very high. Thanks to the systems that are in place now you have the opportunity to spin this up for very little risk and prove out your idea. Structural problems such as what? The idea that wealth is power? That's the same structural problem that has always existed, except that there are more players than ever before. You can launch an entire grass roots political campaign on social media for free. Does that sound like a system that oppresses or is that a system that has given you opportunity to enact change?
Even the barrier to invest in companies and participate directly in the profits and value creation has been erased or lowered. Hundreds of millions of people are directly benefitting from this everyday. It is now a few simple clicks of a button and you're in. Who lowered that barrier? It was the billionaires. And yes, because they did that they will get an asymmetrical reward because their impact and value creation for society is asymmetrical to yours.
You're not doing this, but when you try to have this conversation amongst the general population what is the response? Once you start poking holes at the concept it always reverts to "you're a bootlicker", "why are you defending billionaires, they don't care about you". These responses highlight envy, not reality or the desire to be objective.
Deep down a lot people either don't realize how much free will and agency they now have in this society or they are just living with contempt because everywhere they look they see people that are using that free will to accomplish more than them. It's lack and envy all the way through.
The idea that you can distribute wealth is actually the tell for envy. You want to distribute power because you want power. And you won't be satisfied until that power reaches you, therefore you need to eliminate not just the billionaires, but after it trickles to centimillionaires and decamillionaires after that. If your premise is based on billionaires not existing because they have outsized power you're not going to be satisfied until that power eventually reaches where you are stationed in society.
It has nothing to do with billionaires and it has everything to do with people with more wealth than you having more power. That's envy. How far do you have to distribute before power is meaningless?
> You are closer to a billionaire in your capabilities and agency in this society than a peasant was under an actual King.
How much of that is because I live in a democratic republic, and not because billionaires exist? I guess you might say they're the same thing, but I believe there are free-enough societies with less wealth/power inequality than the US. I think I care more about the gap between top and bottom than about my own personal level of power, but of course it's hard to be objective.
It is harder to draw the line with money than with literal kingship, but I don't accept that we should change nothing and let unbounded power disparities exist.
Edit: More to the point of the original article, maybe I can accept their existence if we plugged all the holes they use to pay a very low percentage, as discussed in other comments. They may remain billionaires, but the tax law would treat them more like the rest of us than like kings.
Who said that? Not in the post that prompted your reply, nor in the parent post.
> Illegal and legal immigrants are being completely supported by Uber right now in NYC.
Can you prove that taxis wouldn't have been able to do that, if Uber didn't exist? That wealth taxes wouldn't have been able to support them?
> The gate that previously blocked your ability to disseminate your ideas to a wide audience and create a living off of it has been completely torn down by the billionaires that create platforms
Musk is also erecting new gates, to promote himself and his ideas. I have to admit, I'm surprised what he lets stay up there, but I still don't believe it's an actual free platform.
> I wish there was a plugin for it so I can erase it from my consumption.
Vibecode it; the billionaires tore down the gates that previously blocked your ability to have any software you want -- as long as the billionaires accede to your use of their AI and running your own software against their platforms, of course.
You complain about open platforms filled with people giving you their ideas for free, and you just don't like what they're saying, but you just cited exactly that openness as one of the valuable things that billionaires deserve to have billions for.
> The premise that billionaires are less efficient than the government at deploying capital to serve society is incongruent with reality
Nobody said that, explicitly. Maybe the people arguing against billionaires don't believe capital efficiency is paramount, so you'd have to persuade them of that first, otherwise you're just saying "But capitalism is the right way, of course!"
Yes, because we only have to go back a few decades to see that the cab industry in NYC were being gatekept by medallions that people were paying 800k+ for just to have the opportunity to drive cab. That was not a system made by billionaires. That was a system made by the government and unions, which is exactly the system that you're fighting for.
> Musk is also erecting new gates, to promote himself and his ideas. I have to admit, I'm surprised what he lets stay up there, but I still don't believe it's an actual free platform.
It's more free and less friction than what we had before. The fact that you can't accept it despite the evidence in front of you and your own observations about being surprised is highlighting that you are failing to be objective.
> Vibecode it; the billionaires tore down the gates that previously blocked your ability to have any software you want -- as long as the billionaires accede to your use of their AI and running your own software against their platforms, of course.
Sure, another capability that billionaires unironically gave me. I do have other more interesting things to work towards.
> ou complain about open platforms filled with people giving you their ideas for free, and you just don't like what they're saying, but you just cited exactly that openness as one of the valuable things that billionaires deserve to have billions for.
Yes, and notice that I didn't say that they should be banned from the platform and their speech oppressed. I turned it around to make it about my own consumption. I have the free will. You're not arguing against me, you're proving my point.
> Maybe the people arguing against billionaires don't believe capital efficiency is paramount, so you'd have to persuade them of that first
Maybe we shouldn't assume the people without capital know what is paramount and what isn't when it comes to capital. It's hilarious to think there's some poor chap out there saying these people are being too efficient with capital and accumulating it while also believing that capital efficiency is not paramount. Hello? The problem you're pointing out is directly related to capital efficiency, yet you think the solution is to be capital inefficient. That has clearly not worked out for you or for anybody else in this society. We have countless examples where capital inefficiency has hurt us badly in this society.
Though I agree with many of your points, what I think the OP was gesturing at was the idea that billionaires are more avaricious than the average person; hence we shouldn't be surprised that Paul Graham is wary about paying an effective tax rate that would put him on par with majority of tax payers in this country.
This isn't an new or particularly controversial observation: e.g. "Money never made a man happy yet, nor will it. The more a man has, the more he wants. Instead of filling a vacuum, it makes one." Benjamin Franklin
"The love of money grows as the money itself grows." Juvenal
Having worked for several billionaires and seen them in their day-to-day, those quotes resonate with me.
I think it's a bit ridiculous that these individuals feel the compulsion to min-max their capital at the expense of pursuits that could better be fueled by it, specifically for the collective good. I think it is shameful behavior and not something we should be promoting in society.
Shameful and obvious envy. You're not fooling anybody because your comments betray you
Speaking of comments, I've seen yours on here. So much hate; so much toxicity. What exactly are you contributing here beyond discord? Maybe get your own demons in check and stop projecting.
Well I'm not on here very much and don't comment very much but sure I'll give this a shot:
The rejection of populist ideas that have pushed many into celebrating political violence and death. Want examples?
The rejection of the vicious cycle of envy that has been brewing in these comments and other platforms like this one that is the path that directly leads to above.
Not quite, because you're using the opposite extreme where someone has no assets. Meanwhile the median net worth in the US ~$200k, which would be $2000/year in tax for every 1% in wealth tax. That's certainly enough for ordinary people to notice.
On top of that, the conversion is even worse than that implies for ordinary people, because the primary reason the median is ~$200k isn't that the median person has $200k their whole lives, it's that they have ~$0 when they're 18 and ~$400k when they retire and the median person is about halfway to retirement age. If you transfer tax burden from income tax to wealth tax then that means they'll be paying more in wealth tax in the second half of their life, which means they need to be saving rather than spending the money not paid in income tax, including during the first half of their life. But that causes their net worth to go up on paper by more/sooner, because they're essentially holding extra money they'll only have to pay in tax later, which in turn causes them to pay more in tax for a tax on holding assets.
Moreover, then you can't say that Alice always benefits because she has no assets and Bob always pays more because he has $400,000 because what's actually happening is that Alice pays less when she's 20 and more when she's 60. That's going to be unpopular because the 20 year olds are generally expecting to be 60 someday but the 60 year olds never expect to be 20 again.
If that were the case the criticism of Paul Graham's reasoning would be wrong to begin with because the only people paying it would be the people who do get most of their income from investments.
Moreover, your proposal doesn't actually work. If corporations don't pay a wealth tax then rich people just put their assets into corporations that they control but don't formally own (there are many ways to do this). But if they do then ordinary people with ordinary retirement savings can't be spared, since it doesn't change your finances to have the companies your retirement savings are invested in give you lower returns by the amount they pay in wealth tax than to have you pay a wealth tax out of the returns.
For those who have little hope of the wealth tax applied to them (me for example), but as as someone who has investments and need them for retirement, I need to decide if this will affect bond prices or equity prices in a positive or negative way as their attractiveness will change in relative terms, or if publicly accessible funds will get devalued in favor of private investment opportunities and all public assets get devalued. Oh, wait, I am not wealthy, so I do not have the option of private equity, and cannot participate in what would be an attractive investment opportunity when investments shift towards more opaque assets.
For those that have zero assets, I do not think that a shift by the wealthy to private equity is a good thing, unless you want to work for a private equity company. A government job would be your best bet. And a shift to private equity would have a downward pressure on tax collections, so whatever projections for how much a wealth tax would generate, I am suspect.
A lot of people complain about private equity. This scourge was, to a small or large degree depending on your viewpoint, an unintended side effect of SOX compliance, meant to protect investors, and in the end narrowed down the amount of public companies, and created more opportunities/demand for PE. I think it is debatable how much protection investors actually received.
We live in a system, and making a fundamental change to one part of that system has effects on all parts. Raising the amount of taxes under the current system ? That is one thing. Introducing a whole new tax concept, difficult to predict. Especially if this is done by states, which could cause capital movements with their own unexpected consequences.
You can work for years at a startup at a depressed wage, then have a windfall that makes up for it on average.
That windfall (in California) will be taxed at a marginal rate of 52%. The only people that ever pay nearly that much are middle class. Some sort of time averaging would help.
Anyway, the US tax code is complicated. Personally, I’d prefer a flat tax with universal basic income. This could replace income, capital gains and inheritance taxes in their entirety. (Along with a lot of social services bureaucracy).
California contains a lot of houses!
This is more of a fair comparable to reason about when comparing taxing wealth and taxing wages.
In nerd-speak, taxing the Derivative of Wealth is comparable to taxing Income.
You could argue that a fair comparison of wages and wealth would first subtract the minimum cost of living, so that wage tax is effectively a tax on the growing wealth of wage-earners. This would arguably be a fairer tax comparison - in both cases it is the derivative of wealth that is being taxed.
If a large portion of the populace spends all their income on basic food, rent and petrol then they have no chance of wealth increase, and perhaps should fairly be charged 30% of their $0 growth in annual wealth.
P.S. a wealth tax is a property tax. They have existed in the US since before the income tax (which was originally considered unconstitutional by its opponents).
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...
> Specifically, for single decedents, estate taxes paid equal 6.8% of the value of Forbes wealth at death. The value of their gross estate is 39% of the Forbes estimate of their wealth. This large gap, already noted in earlier work (Raub et al., 2010), is likely to reflect the various techniques available to high-net-worth individuals to undervalue assets in the context of the estate tax. Taxable estate is then 45% of gross estate (due to deductions primarily gifts to charities) and on that base the tax rate is 39% (Balkir et al., 2025, Table 4 Panel B).
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34170/w341...
The only way this system can continue is if we increase the receipts (aka tax revenue).
The political class has very wisely targeted "the wealthy," who are capable of tactically avoiding taxes, but as always it will eventually include the middle class who will ultimately be paying the tax. From their standpoint they will popularize this tactic because it will work
This is being sold as class warfare, but its really the evolution of our political system into an unsustainable system of patronage with public funds.
We have plenty of other problems like "buy, borrow, die" (discussed elsewhere in this thread), but ultimately the wealth tax stems from needing more public funds, which stems from politicians spending all of our money.
When Elon sold a bunch of Tesla stock in 2021 he paid $11 Billion in capital gains tax on it... That's more than entire cities worth of people combined would ever pay for the rest of their lives.
They are likely referring to a stat like this: https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/
I see this repeated all the time and it's worthless without context. What percent of all income do the top 5% earn? What's their share of national wealth?
It may be more realistic to view this in terms of elite power struggle. There are some constituencies that have found their way into positions of some power -- in government and public service -- that are in conflict with other elites, who have found some power in private enterprise. These groups battle for control of things. One strategy in the battle is managing the other group's access to money.
It's not clear from any kind of first principles, that we are better off with government allocation of a large portion of the society's capital. That hasn't historically been a big winner. Private ordering seems to net out a higher quality of life overall, even with income inequality.
So is getting rid of intergenerational wealth transfer. So since we're already dreaming about a new system that seems irrelevant.
> legitimate use cases
Intergenerational wealth transfer also has "legitimate use cases" if one gets to define "legitimate". I'm curious what legitimate cases you have in mind.
Re: irrevocable trust, a cursory search revealed no legitimate use case imo, all use cases I see are proxies to skirt taxes or hide income/wealth. What would you consider a legitimate use case for one?
Your point re: case law is well taken, but per [2] up until a few decades ago there was a cat-and-mouse game between laws and tricks regarding inheritance wealth transfer. This stopped and it’s easier than ever to transfer > 10M tax free at or death, which has massive implications for wealth inequality.
That said I agree it’s extremely unlikely and have no hope that any of this will change.
For most people income is tied to selling their time. It doesn't scale at all. Unless the income comes from wealth.
The societal problem here is a group with self-reinforcing run-away levels of wealth. And to counter that you do need something more extreme than this nonsensical equivalency of income tax
That's how you end up with an over-regulated country where people doing great things for the country's economy start choosing a different country to build their dreams in.
It's also how you drive the currently-wealthy to other countries to spend and invest their fortunes in.
The possibility of being ultra-wealthy is a huge reason to build awesome shit in the US that creates millions of jobs and brings the US economy ahead.
But anyway, oligarchs weren't this powerful in the mid-century. FDR's New Deal was successful in bringing down the Robber Barons and ushering in America's golden age. Coincidentally, things started to go to shit with the introduction of Reaganomics and the promise that letting a few private individuals concentrate more and more wealth would be beneficial to the economy.
There are arguments about wealth taxes inducing capital flight and investment disincentives, the difficulty of paying tax bills from illiquid intangible wealth or even quantifying it, and whether it's really a good thing to pressure people building a company to sell much of it off, but telling income tax payers that an effective tax rate of 20% is high isn't one of them...
If the US and the EU introduced a wealth tax then it would be relatively difficult for the capital flight fears to materialise. But yeah, the trouble with wealth taxes is that wealth (i.e. capital) is mobile.
Which is why land and property taxes are probably the most effective way of taxing wealth.
This is untrue btw
50% of people in the US pay effectively no net taxes
Billionaires included, defence contracts and corporate subsidies count just as much as food stamps.
They still pay payroll taxes, state taxes, sales taxes, and various other state or local taxes and fees.
https://itep.org/fairness-matters-chart-book-on-who-pays-sta...
We have societal problems around food costs, housing costs, healthcare costs, &c; but people with extreme wealth are not bidding up sandwiches, studio apartments, &c, &c. If we "solve" their wealth by taking it from them and giving it to the government, what does that help? What good is the government going to do with that? Allocating money through the government has not been a particularly successful strategy for improving the overall standard of living.
If what you're saying is true, would it be unfair of me to say that the government is not using their power over the economy to fix any of the deep fundamental problems we are facing?
Is it good policy to take people's money because they aren't doing what we think they should be doing with it?
What are you even basing this assumption on? Just quickly comparing the highest ranking countries by Human Development Index with the highest government budgets per capita and the highest income tax rates would, if anything, support the opposite conclusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_governmen...
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/personal-income-ta...
Broadly speaking, human welfare got a lot better in the last three hundred years, due to productivity improvements that were tied to things like property rights, joint stock companies, availability of credit, &c.
We haven't really found a good alternative to it. It may seem to you that countries like Austria, &c, are doing the right thing by taking very large amounts of GDP out of the hands of private enterprise and using it "for good" instead of "for growth"; but that is just eating the seed corn. It looks good in the short term.
They are, though. Private equity continues to buy apartments and increase rates. States with increasing PE ownership also have increasing rates of cost-burdened renters spending more than 30% of income on rent and utilities, e.g. in Tampa, Phoenix, DFW, and Atlanta. Maybe not specific people, but the ultrawealthy nonetheless drive these changes.
Not really.
It's also a plan to hold onto real estate as market prices rise, flip for profit later, and not deal with all the issues that renters bring (management and maintenance costs, bringing up and keeping to code, potential damages and law suits, etc).
Keeping a floor or two active for Air BnB type short churn rentals while shuttering the bulk of a building can make $$$-sense to a PE.
His core point seems to be that taking $20 from him is mathematically equivalent to taking $20 from a homeless girl's hat.
I guess mathematically it is the same number if you dont normalize for that, which he wont.
Hell, I'll be the first in line to pay the damn tax so long as billionaires are right in line with me too.
Uh … sure I would? Why not? The top bracket was 70% in the 80s. So that 61% is still a fair bit short of what it was then. (And the 80s isn't the highest point, either.)
IDK if it would be a good idea or not, but I'd entertain the debate, certainly. To state that this is unarguable, though, well…
Income tax doesn’t affect unrealized capital gains (where the rich “hide” most of their income).
A wealth tax (even without a minimum threshold) doesn’t apply to the poorest who can’t accumulate enough to even have any savings.
This conversion only works for income that is entirely saved and reinvested, which the majority of people can’t afford to do.
All that I've seen are wealth taxes on top of some arbitrary (but very large) wealth level. The latest proposal from Congress applied a 2% tax to wealth above $50 million with an additional 1% (3% total) on wealth over $1 billion. Plus a 40% exit tax to stop them all from fleeing to the Bahamas or Monaco.
[1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo256019...
There's the idea that "wealth" gains tend to not be taxed for a variety of reasons. The common parlance of "Buy, Borrow, Die" category things. The "step-up in basis" category things - i.e. no capital gains tax realized on lots of inherited wealth. (The inheritance tax might trigger in some cases, but oddly the capital gains tax often might not be triggered on transferred assets because they were never sold and the new possessor will be taxed at the stepped up received value if they ever sell. So there's a chunk of appreciation that never received capital gains taxation.) Trust related things.
There's the idea that 501(c)(4)s allow wealth to be transferred untaxed while retaining control over the assets (particularly because those organizations can engage in political activity, but I'd guess generally some of the organizations exert lots of influence/prestige.)
So perhaps OP is suggesting that maybe there's some fungibility in income tax % and wealth tax %, but when you look at the tax code the equivalency looks pretty weak currently.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w34170 https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-calculated-the-tru...
A defining feature of wealth taxes is that they only tax those that make most of their income through capital gains. This is why they're popular among much of the population.
Now the question is, if we lowered capgains tax rate by 20% but instituted a 1% wealth tax, would that be better or worse? My guess would be worse because wealth taxes are nearly unenforcable, but I wonder if there are good arguments for the other position.
Rich people need to stop hanging out with other rich people.
Good! It should still be higher!
There's nothing more tone deaf than an uber wealthy man arguing he shouldn't pay more in taxes to the system that allows him to be uber wealthy and to be deliberately misleading at the same time.
1. Most people do not derive even a fraction of their income from interest on wealth.
2. Earning income from interest on wealth requires zero effort. That isn't true for salaries.
3. Income and wealth are totally different things. You can find a way to equate them in one contrived example but there are so many other factors involved in the real world.
Billionaires gonna billionaire.
The very wealthy are paying very low effective rates on their investment gains. Various billionaires have publicly described the truth of this. This is not 20% on top of 35%. They are paying a marginal rate of 35% of deliberately minimized taxable income and zero on deliberately maximized unrealized gains. Then 20% when realized, but as we all know by now there are ways to make sure it’s never realized.
I don’t know what the best approach is here, but I know this framing is nonsense.
If you’re lucky enough that you don’t need to work for your income, you should be taxed. A lot. How much? Enough to make sure you don’t become so rich that your children don’t need to work.
Being rich is not fair, it’s very rarely deserved, and it needs to be taxed unfairly.
Source: The Second Estate by Ray Madoff (2025)
Income is money that comes from actually laboring and contributing to society. Wealth tax is tax from sitting on your ass doing nothing.
Also, taxes don’t have to be a flat percentage. Like income tax, a good wealth tax would be progressive. Only wealth beyond a certain amount would be taxed, and the percentages would scale.
This is why we should have income taxes that are as low as possible, but still progressively scaled. We should similarly have a progressive scaling wealth tax, but it should be much harsher than the income tax because we want people to work.
Related point is monetary system and monetary plumbing should be boring like electricity or water supply but because of distortions making money out of money has become the hottest thing.
> In 1940, the federal tax rate on income over $200,000 started at 66 percent. By 1944, the top tax rate on all income over $200,000 — about $3.4 million in today’s dollars — had jumped to 94 percent.
https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once...
Sure, but you actually have to work for continued income. Wealth accumulates with no input once established.
Wealth has the ability to increase (capital gains) without having to pay tax until it changes hands, whereas when income increases it is immediately taxed at a higher rate. Additionally, wealthy people can use securities as collateral for near zero interest lifetime loans which also bypass having to pay income tax.
This is incorrect, historically you'll pay a ~2%-3% loss via inflation if you keep your money in cash. If you invest (making it capital) in bonds or securities then you will see accumulation, but thats actually a risk premium.
> Additionally, wealthy people can use securities as collateral for near zero interest lifetime loans which also bypass having to pay income tax.
This is true, its typically called "Buy, Borrow, Die" but the reality is that it is only available to a very small percent of wealthy individuals and exists because of the way inheritance is handled ("stepped-up basis"). Even reasonably (not fabulously) wealthy people will still pay retail rates on the loans making the tactic basically ineffective. Last I heard you needed something like 100M+ liquid for lenders to even consider it (presumably, because they will make more off of some other deal with you)
And for inherited rental property, there is another huge loophole: you can can depreciate the full market value of an asset that you got for free. That’s a substantial tax benefit for many years.
There could be other solutions too -- say, require a virtual wash trade at time of inheritance, so the capital gains from the parent's lifetime are taxed at time of death and the child gets the stepped up basis. Somewhat different than an inheritance tax, but at least not a giveaway.
It's just that the exclusion amounts are fairly high, so in practice the tax owed is often $0.
This is just Internet mythology. The IRS would go after such arrangements very quickly - the IRS has the Applicable Federal Rate for loans. Though this really isn't an issue with banks as they are not charities and tend to want to make money.
Go get a calculator - if you took out a loan and had the interest set a the minimum of the AFR, what would it compound to in 30 years? It would obviously be much higher than just selling stock and paying capital gains on it.
The ultra rich do take out loans, and these loans do get repaid, and that money has to come from somewhere. Go google something like billionaire stock sales to see examples - if they all could just say, "Thanks for the zero percent interest loan! I'll pay you back in 30 years in my estate!" - I think they would have.
This makes sense. Borrowing for income in most scenarios is strictly worse financially than recognizing conventional income if you actually do the math. Wealthy people are optimizing for financial outcomes, not avoiding taxes per se.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
Given that the ultrarich pay very little to no income tax then Paul’s argument is “don’t increase my income tax from unnoticeable to 20%”
$tax_paid = max($income_tax_liability + $capital_gain_tax_liability, $wealth_tax_liability)
I think it's underestimated how important ease of enforcement is for taxes and laws in general. Laws that are hard to enforce require more powerful law enforcement agencies, more invasion of privacy, more punishment, more restriction of freedom. Enforcing a death tax, for example, necessarily requires limiting and tracking of all transfers of money or assets between people including personal gifts. A property tax merely requires keeping track of land ownership, which is a function governments already do, and in the worst case you can simply physically go to the land and see who is using it or seize it.
That being said, the richest are effectively _not_ paying the highest marginal tax rate considering all the tax structuring they do. Claiming that they would be paying the highest income tax in the world is misleading, for one. Secondly, the richest in the world _should be_ paying the highest income tax.
How does this make sense? If Johnny sells 5 cars, that means 5 cars were bought. How can Johnny sell more cars than are being bought? Do you mean that Johnny has more cars to sell than are being bought?
Who is forcing anyone to sell at rock bottom?
How will they suffer? The people with assets, to realize a benefit from them, have to spend money. If they don't spend the money, then what's the problem?
I understand why he simplifies things, but it doesn’t really jive with saying politicians don’t understand how taxes work.
I think politicians have a better understanding of taxes than Paul does, and they have a better understanding of how politics work - basically as in all things political, if you convince the majority that you’re dumping on minorities (billionaires, immigrants, trans people) you’ll do well.
13.3%
> and presumably for billionaires, the Net Investment Income Tax,
NIIT kicks in at 200k, you presumably know this but I thought your comment could be misread as implying it only mattered for billionaires. :P
> I think politicians have a better understanding of taxes than Paul does, and they have a better understanding of how politics work - basically as in all things political, if you convince the majority that you’re dumping on minorities (billionaires, immigrants, trans people) you’ll do well
The author presumably understands this, but it's often more effective to pretend that your opposition is confused then to admit that you believe they are corrupt, unethical, dishonest, and actively trying to perpetrate evil. If nothing else, it gives them a more face saving avenue to course correct. And sometimes they really just didn't know better...
As a bit of an aside, "spending more time with family" is an often-used euphemism around someone being fired, but if you have more money than you know what to do with and you aren't using it to spend more time with those you love, then what on earth is it for?
To give more financial support, you have to do independent, uncoordinated campaigning for the candidate. So you can spend a million dollars on ads saying to vote for a candidate, but you can't give that money to the candidate's campaign and the candidate can't coordinate with you. This is what Super PACs do.
I only write this because a lot of people are unclear on the rules. I'm not making an argument about billionaires.
> In fact, not a single coordination investigation has ever resulted in a PAC being fined.
I'm not naive enough to think communism is a magical answer (but Cuba is not some A/B experiment - the U.S. in particular has done a lot to make sure Cuba didn't succeed) - it ends up concentrating the wealth too. I would favor some form of democratic socialism, with leaders who can be kicked out if they abuse their power and limits on the influence of rich individuals and corporations.
On the latter, I think we forget that corporations are a legal construct intended to benefit society by allowing risk pooling - they are not people and should not be considered as such for things like free speech rights. Corporations should not be allowed to make political contributions in any way.
It's a big democracy red flag when a majority wants to take a lot from a tiny minority; the moral hazard of the unfairness is that it's unclear where this ends. (Saying "one-time" and "1%" are trying to limit that risk)
It's a democracy red flag when an unpopular minority is vilified as the cause of society's problems. It short-circuits real policy making and distracts from real issues.
The bargain of private wealth is that it's better at innovation that should spread widely -- if it's subject to competition and does not export costs.
One problem is that one of the best investments is to change the law to reduce competition, increase market power, and export costs -- i.e., to weaken politics.
Another is that wealth used to mostly invest locally (information and transaction costs), so locals would see some benefit. No longer.
Finally, as an accelerant, enterprises are made of legions of managers and experts, who now compete more than ever; they would lose that competition by supporting less extractive policies or gentler politics.
Net result is that wealth seems not productive but extractive, and there is no negative feedback to reduce that.
Once the grand gambit of goodwill is lost, it cannot be recovered for at least a generation, but there's no real feedback to prevent that. The political viability of something like a wealth tax is just an early indicator.
In the absence of any other considerations, I'd agree with you. However, the last half-century has seen that same tiny minority taking nearly all productivity gains from the rest, to the point that wealth inequality is greater now than during the first gilded age, so I have somewhat less sympathy for the tiny minority when the rest want to claw some of that back.
> It's a democracy red flag when an unpopular minority is vilified as the cause of society's problems. It short-circuits real policy making and distracts from real issues.
It's less of a red flag when that unpopular minority is the cause of society's problems. The ultra-wealthy have commandeered government to enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us.
We have massive consolidation of markets and media due to lobbying for deregulation and against enforcing anti-trust laws. We have further wealth concentration, the likes of which exceeds even the first gilded age at the hands of massive tax cuts and loopholes predominantly benefiting only the wealthiest, while also cutting tax enforcement personnel, making it easier to get away with tax evasion. Of course, in the face of the massive budget deficits resulting from those tax cuts, we make cuts to important social programs affecting many (and with largely positive ROI) while protecting subsidies to some of the most profitable businesses on the planet and leaping at any chance to start wars abroad whenever we need to distract from embarrassments at home. We have lax enforcement of labor laws which would allow workers to organize and demand higher wages, while at the same time passing unconstitutional laws at the state level which try to prevent organized labor in the first place. We have not only allowed the federal minimum wage to lag significantly behind inflation, but we have lobbying groups coming out of the woodwork to stop any proposed increase. When we have large economic crises caused by the malfeasance of the wealthiest of the wealthy, our corrupt Congress passes large bail-outs for the culprits while telling the majority of us to suck it up and tighten our belts. Of course, our consolidated media landscape increasingly obfuscates the real problems, presenting alternate boogeymen like immigrants so the downward spiral continues.
Allowing so much wealth to concentrate in the hands of a tiny minority is itself a giant democracy red flag. The US is on the cusp of losing its democracy as a direct result, damaging global security and markets in its death throes. The mere existence of billionaires and their corrupting influence on government is the issue.
not to forget that the inverse is also bad; generally people shouldn't take from each other
It’s not “taking”. The rich give out some money so the society has a higher probability to stay peaceful. or a violent revolution may happen.
This is really a win win situation
I sure would, if I was talking about someone who makes more money in a week than most of us will make in our entire lives.
I think pg has forgotten that most people aren't rich.
I'm skeptical that the super-rich are only generating 5% on their money. My anecdotal experience is that it's usually north of 15%. They have access to investments that main-street does not.
If we plug in 15% instead of 5% in PG's reasoning, the effective income tax increase is quite a bit lower.
No.
Investments shift to things whose tax value updates slowly, for example property which typically adjusted more slowly than other financial assets. This tends to rise property prices and concentrate ownership.
It causes other distortions in allocation depending on the tax details, but wealthy people tend to adjust more aggressively to changing conditions.
We are already there in US. Real estate is already controlled by companies, and rental costs are through the roof.
1- Is this in fact a 1-time tax or is that a dishonest narrative to make the proposal easier to swallow?
2- How do you prevent capital flight to other states?
3- How do those with paper money or more voting shares than equity shares cover their tax bill?
That being said, I think more creative energy needs to be spent on the problem itself.
What do we do about individuals with $100M+ of unrealized capital gains that through various methods will never have to realize those gains to live an extraordinary lavish lifestyle, and their children will inherit the money with a step-up in basis? For those who make all their money from W2s, they pay very high tax burdens, while those who strictly have capital gains generally pay at most around ~20% for LTCG.
To those criticizing the California Wealth Tax, how do we solve this? How do we make billionaires pay more and lawyers/doctors/software engineers pay less?
Person A has one billion dollars. Holds it in cash in a vault deep in a mountain he owns. He does not earn any wages.[1]
20% income tax: $0.00
01% wealth tax: $10,000,000.00
[1] Every billionaire controls their taxable income. Unlike wage earners, billionaires have 100% control over how much taxable income they have each year. They make choices.
They can have the vault in the cave. Or they can put money into artwork that grows in value and only generates income upon sale. Or a million other ways they can choose to control taxable income.
It's a fairness and moral issue. If we changed from income taxes to wealth taxes, everyone will have the same issue. The billionaire will experience paying taxes on money that was previously taxed as income; as will the $75,000 worker who saved every dime he could spare to create life savings.
What isn't ethical or moral is for the wealthy to create the rules of who bears the burden of paying for the cost of running society; only to later complain when those who got the short end of that stick want to create a fair system.
Moreover, the vast majority of wealth held by billionaires has never been taxed.
Start with georgist/pigouvian taxes, and then expand to other kinds of income/wealth afterwards.
But Georgist taxes can go really far I'd imagine.
(What's more important? IP. The value of Google, say, isn't in the land it owns. It's in the code, the database of web pages, and the google.com domain name.)
I am fully against any wealth tax but 'Don't get this'?
Who says they don't get it. It doesn't serve their purpose so of course (like anyone selling) they are not going to disclose it.
With a wealth tax using his calculation, the higher your returns, the lower the comparable income tax would be. If your returns are 10% you'll pay $1 on $10 capital gains which is 10% and you end up with $109. Conversely someone achieving a mere 1% cap gains would be essentially taxed for 100% of his return.
With income taxes it's usually the opposite: the more you earn, the higher the tax bracket you will be put into.
Somebody like Paul Graham surely has higher than 10% capital gains, otherwise he'd not be exactly a great investor.
Personally I'm against wealth taxes, I think capital gains taxes are a much more appropriate and fairer tool. I also think taxes in general are way too high, if you are part of the middle class and add up everything you pay in taxes, fees, insurance, duties and whatnot you can end up losing 70-90% of whatever you earn. It's extremely hard to actually accumulate wealth for the vast majority of people.
The missed point is that a 1% wealth tax 'only for a select group' can easily become later a 1% (or higher) wealth tax 'for a less select group'.
What a pompous and uninformed "I am smarter than others" way to think. And very 'parental' (ie 'we can teach them').
Note that Politicians (in order to remain in their job) need to think in terms of the people they represent and getting re-elected by those people. You may not like it it may not be good for you but understand that in the position they are in why they do it.
Feel free to just tell the masses to eat cake since bread is so expensive while you dine on your mega-yacht. Just like the market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent, you may or may not be able to outlive the eventual violent outburst from the rest of the 99%. Scott Galloway is right on that the anti-data center backlash is just a proxy for anger at wealth inequality.
The principle is simple: if you are spending the money, your gains are realized, and you should pay taxes.
This sort of proposal would establish a minimum 35 % return in any project. Thus halting investment entirely
Let's put this in perspective. I'm currently going to collaterize a few hundred thousand in equity to take a loan to develop homes in my very housing short city of Portland. My calculated return is 40%. This is an excellent return..
It this were taxed then my initial loan would have to be 40% larger which means all my profit would go into paying that back, which means this project never gets done.
You are already going to get the money once the homes are sold and the capital gains are realized. Why is everyone so greedy? You essentially want to tax twice
Again the tax rate sets a minimum return. These high returns encourage too much risk.
Collateralizing other assets is the standard way in which capital grows. I don't see how equities and any different than homes.
There is no 'circular' borrowing other than the normal creation of money through lending
Of course people taking out equity cash for investments are actually putting the money for productive use.
How about there's no capital gains tax on equity if it's rolled into another investment of any kind. Eliminate the like kind nonsense. Tax only consumption income.
Based on available data deep contempt for working people should be assumed until proven otherwise, even for billionaires who are 'self-made' by way of a lot of right-time-right-place luck.
My read of this is "the discussion of taxing wealth makes me anxious. i will do a tap dance, please become mired in watching / discussing my tap dance so that we can put off the inevitable and ultimately necessary a little longer"
To the "conversion rate": maybe, but who cares? The answer here is: apply the tax, see if we still have billionaires afterwards. If we do, then keep doing it.
- high net wealth individuals essentially being indifferent to income tax.
- income tax and short term capital gains are taxed at much higher rates to long term capital gains.
- lower net wealth folks (ie. the general public) receiving most of their income as income.
- high and ultra high net wealth individuals now making most of their money through dynastic trusts and inheritance.
This combination ends up making it so that, as Warren Buffet would put it, he ends up paying a lower effective tax rate than his secretary.
I effectively don't really care if it's a wealth tax or some other more targeted technical fix, but it's not sustainable to have the very wealthiest individuals taxed at a lower effective tax rate than everyone else and also able to pass on their wealth directly to heirs without significant estate taxes.
This is the wrong way of thinking about it. It's not adding 20% to an already taxed entity, it's adding taxes where there weren't before. Adding 20% on top of the income tax would indeed be controversial. In his framing the rate of return is effectively untaxed income, so it would be more accurate to say that this is like adding income tax to a currently untaxed income stream.
Here is a cool website showing Wealth, shown to scale.
How I pay tax on my labor income doesn't have a lot to do with how Paul pays taxes on his investments. Paul makes his money from investment income.
Of course there's more complexity than this, but that aspect is a plausible reductive lens.
But the conclusion is silly. We all know the extremely wealthy who'd be subject to a wealth tax basically don't pay taxes and that a 20% tax is totally right around what the typical overall tax burden is for the middle class or median households. The 1% example equating to 20% is basically saying the wealth tax would be in line with a flat tax, not even with a progressive rate tax. The wealthy have turned the tax system into one that's functionally regressive for the most wealthy and then PG complains that a proposal that makes it more like a flat tax is "not understood" by lawmakers?
It sounds ridiculous to me.
Or maybe I'm missing something.
Money in the long run can buy anything, including political influence. There are no regulations that can effectively preclude this. (And empirically, America over the past 40 years has seen moneyed entities successfully re-align politics and economic policy with their interests -- this was entirely predictable). An unequal society therefore cannot be a democracy. If you believe in democracy, then you necessarily must believe in wealth redistribution. (In fact, I argue that any person who believes that the American Revolution was justified, for any non-trivial reason, will likely find that those the same non-trivial reason could be invoked to reallocate wealth away from today's wealthy.)
Counterarguments to this view (i.e. a different top-level value than democracy / meaningful sovereignty over the society in which one lives) might invoke utilitarianism: an unequal society potentially produces "better" outcomes if capitalism is allowed to run unrestrained.
But a problem this argument encounters is who gets to decide what "better" is? All systems are economic in the long term, including political ones. A good framework for understanding is that a society in the long term is not "one person one vote" but rather "one dollar one vote." Today's preferences are dollar-weighted. Those with money decide what is better. The economy serves the average dollar's interests. And the average dollar's interest are the wealth-weighted preferences of society's members.
We started with an income tax to fund the government. But today our most pressing issue is not funding the government, but not having an oligarchy. Wealth is the thing that most needs to be taxed in order to allow for any semblance of democracy. Analogies drawn to income, though interesting, are meaningless.
If (big if) I'm remembering that correctly, I don't get why we just go after the problem directly and do something like treat putting down collateral for these type of loans as a taxable event. I'm sure it's not as straight forward as it sounds, but I can't imagine it'd be more convoluted that needing to track the wealth of every high net worth individual.
Maybe I'm in the minority on this, but I actually don't care if Jeff Bezos' net worth went up by $5 billion because Amazon had a good day in the market. If the shares are just sitting in an account doing nothing other than proving ownership it's all kind of just numbers in a computer, IMO. A painting is probably a better example than stock, but if I have a painting on my wall that was worth $1 million dollars yesterday and today it's worth $10 million that change in valuation is essentially meaningless as long as the only thing the painting is doing is hanging on my wall.
What I do care about is when he's able to access the cash value of that $5 billion of Amazon stock without paying the taxes that would come along with selling the stock. If he wants to leave $5 billion in Amazon stock just sitting in his account doing nothing until the day he dies, that's totally fine, but the second he puts it up for collateral we should tax that. I think this has the added benefit of simplifying things by avoiding a lot of questions around fair valuation of assets. If I have a $10 million dollar one of a kind painting on my wall that I'm never planning on selling, it's kind of hard to put a valuation on that and it can be easily manipulated by finding the right appraiser. If I put a painting up as collateral for a $10 million loan it becomes a lot harder for the owner to argue that it's actually worthless or the IRS to argue that it's actually worth $1 billion.
see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48239802
Moreover if the bug is that income isn't tax at death, why not just fix that bug? Otherwise it's like arguing: "wow there are people in poverty? Better have a communist revolution to fix that!"
This would close the gap between Buffett's tax rate and that of his secretary, but would not be the "highest taxes in the world" that PG decries.
I don't want to do math, but they aren't the same.
And people aren't investing 100% of their income in risk free 5% assets.
Explained here: https://gemini.google.com/share/e230bcecaaeb
The reality is that the total financial effect of that sort of technique is not that considerable, but the political noise that can be made out of turning it into a perpetual problem (e.g. by only proposing to fix it with drastic non-solutions like wealth taxes) is gold to the people that profit from making us hate each other.
I think there is kind of a breakdown in social order here. If society allows you to become the chief, it ought to also impose upon you a burden, an obligation, to wield your power over the tribe fairly, generously. To care for the weak, to make sure that everyone benefits, to ensure that things stay stable and safe under your leadership... The standard is higher, not lower. The sacrifice is greater, not lesser.
It is absolutely bizarre and you can see exactly thew way PG, and other like him, are thinking. They all want to have this immense power (and it truly is immense, more immense than ever in modern history!) but they want none of the obligation, none of the responsibility.
Even asking for 20 percent is too much, apparently.
It's really sick.
If you accumulated a fortune, there was some skill at play. There was also considerable luck and some exploitation. The wealth tax is a way of paying back for the luck and exploitation.
You will still be extremely wealthy.
Paul wants to play the fairness card. Life is not fair and those who accumulated massive fortunes won the lottery. Don’t let the massively rich conflate issues. Don’t get fooled.
Economics is simple. Resources are finite, and money plus markets preserve that finitude as an invariant (that's why it works as a store of value). If you sit on more money and accumulate more money a natural consequence is that someone else has less access to the finite resources available (either in actuality or in potentia), period, because you can accumulate enough to begin to dictate how much they can access (by having decision power around wages). There is no reason to assume private individual wealth-hoarders have public interest in mind, and indeed they have often proven that they don't. They want to maximize value at specific points in the system, which is the literal definition of instability and eventual collapse in chaos theory. You need to bring the system back to stability through structural intervention and regulation. Tax the rich. Cap individual accumulation. It's that simple. The world does need or benefit from kings, whether minted through politic or finance.
Americans really struggle to understand how tax work outside of their country.
First, the whole premise of income to wealth tax equivalence is non sensical, because interests are rarely literally in the form of coupons/payments, but rather left as compounding value. This is the whole point of share buybacks, reinvested ETFs, etc; and Paul Graham knows that of course. If you are rich, you don't need the cash of your investments, so you don't want to trigger taxable events, so you are effectively at 0% tax rate and just let it compound.
> Currently the country with the highest marginal income tax rate is Denmark, at 60.5%
This is the most BS statement ever, and would only be believable to Americans with no understanding of how foreign country do taxes. Which is at best very naive of him, or highly disingenuous. This is because "tax" in the US is essentially employee paid, whereas most other countries split the bill between employer and employee at a higher proportion. The result is the same, but the employee part only is labeled "tax", the employer part being often called "contribution".
When comparing across countries, you have to look at the tax wedge (super gross to net), not the tax rate (gross to net).
And if you do that, well the US has a lower tax wedge than even the most generous European countries (Ireland).
In France for instance, the tax wedge is close to 70% for the higher bracket. Yes, that means if your employer pays $100, you get $30. And that's in a country with 20% VAT compared to US ~8%.
Not to mention, except super rich little little business-hub countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Malta, Cayman Islands, etc), pretty much all _developed_ countries have some form of wealth tax, it's just common sense.
1- Fundamentally, they are magnitudes of different units, one is tax/income, the other is tax/wealth/time. Not only is the denominator different, one being calculated over income, the other over wealth, but there is an additional inverse time factor.
In income tax, whether the period is yearly or monthly or hourly, is an administrative matter that doesn't materially change the rate, 1%/month is the same as 12%/month, however in wealth tax, 1% wealth tax per year is not the same as 1% wealth tax per month. In many respects one might consider wealth tax to be a second order derivative of income with respect to time. Which is again very similar to a progressive income tax. Anyone that studied polynomials knows that there is no such equivalence between ax and bx^2, they are irreducible mathematical forms.
2)Trivially, in the scenario Paul proposed, Wealth tax is comparable to income tax only with respect to capital gains. That is, if he did find an equivalence between income tax and wealth tax for capital gains (which he didn't), income tax would still apply non capital gain taxes. But I will concede that there may be an argument that, if such an equivalence were found, it could be considered that there exists an Income Tax which will always yield more tax than another specific wealth tax.
3) The equivalence between wealth and income tax cannot be linear. The example given applied to 1% wealth tax and was compared to 20%, and a risk free interest of 5%. If the wealth tax were of 2%, 5% or 10%, would that be equivalent to 40%, 100%, and 200% income tax respectively? The last one is especially ridiculous.
I think that what you can tell is that they think the voting public won't understand the momentousness of what they're proposing (or that their "color" will cheer that very momentousness).
Whether they themselves do or don't understand how impactful the proposal would be is much harder to guess.
This does make retiring a tad bit complicated. Say you've saved $3M and are ready to retire. That means each year you're spending $75K just to satisfy this tax.
[1] Depending on how your wealth is structured. Cash is 2.5%, but if you own, say, a business, you pay the tax on the value of the goods, not on the value of the building, hardware, etc. You don't pay Zakat on the house you live on. Agriculture is actually taxed at 10%, etc.
Since a lot of billionaires pay practically nothing in taxes, relative to their wealth, a wealth tax that equates to a 20% income tax would be entirely reasonable, and they'd still pay a much smaller percentage than the taxes I pay from my wages. It closes a loophole, it doesn't punish the very rich. And, nobody is suggesting the average 401k or Robinhood portfolio should be subject to a wealth tax.
Capital gains are on realized gains. Based on the difference between purchase price and selling price.
The thing is, wealthy people don't have interests bearing investments, because they don't need the cash right now. They either have unrealized gains (shares, real estate, etc), or interest bearing products wrapped in marked to market vehicules with reinvestment (ETFs, life insurance, mutual fund, etc).
Unrealized gains are not taxed as long as you don't sell them. If you need cash, you can borrow against them, so problem solved.
As for interest bearing investments, most companies nowadays use buybacks instead of dividends to avoid withholding taxes.
> Each 1% of wealth tax is equivalent to 20% of income tax.
Yes, this is the right part. Taxing wealth at 1% is equivalent to taxing income at 20-25% (depending on which return you count as baseline)
> It's clear that politicians don't get this from the way they talk about a "mere 1%" wealth tax. None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate
On the opposite, they understand it right, and PG is completely wrong here: it's not about adding income tax rate to someone that already pay income taxes, it's about making wealthy people, who don't currently pay this tax rate, pay the same rate as people living from their income.
> So in the median case, a state adding an additional 20% in income tax would have a total marginal tax rate of 37% + 4.75% + 20%, or 61.75%.
Bezos, Musk, Zuck and the likes (or even PG himself, likely) don't pay 40% tax on their wealth growth, they currently pays 0%.
In fact, to make them pay as much tax as their employees, there should be a 2% wealth tax, not 1%. Hence, a “mere 1%” is in fact a very generous proposal by leftists politicians and economists, as it would still mean the wealthy only get half the rate of working people.
I guess the simplest approach is, if you're making money, it should be taxed fairly, regardless of how you're making it.
That's exactly it. I've been really shocked at the willful ignorance (or deceit) coming from the billionaire class on this. I mean, OBVIOUSLY the practical operation of the tax regime is unfair at the top end. If you put a billion dollars in assets somewhere, almost any asset (including e.g. stock in a company you can't sell because you need to own it), growth of that asset is (1) trivially liquid via loans[1] or deals and (2) COMPLETELY UNTAXABLE IN PRACTICE because there's never (ever!) going to be a point where it's traded or converted in such a way that it becomes a "capital gain".
[1] e.g. Bezos goes to Citi or whoever and writes up a contract for a $100M loan to be collateralized with ever-appreciating AMZN shares, likely at a deeply discounted rate (low risk, plus the "keep Jeff in the rolodex" benefit to the bank) then pays it back on schedule with another loan taken out on his now-even-larger stake in AMZN. Who pays the tax here? It's not "income"!
Offtopic but I thought your percent looked weird. Turns out, that's the "care of" symbol (℅, U+2105) and not percent (%, U+0025).
I had noticed something was off when proofreading but I didn't know this symbol and I couldn't explain what I did wrong so I assumed it must have been a graphics glitch.
TIL about the “care of” symbol: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Care_of
Indeed.
Andrew Mellon writing in 1924 "Taxation: The People’s Business.": "The fairness of taxing more lightly incomes from wages, salaries and professional services than the incomes from business or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it, and old age diminishes it. In the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life, and it descends to his heirs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon
Via "Our Tax System Should Make You Furious" (interview with a Boston College Law School professor who specializes in tax law and estate planning):
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
Paul tries to frame it as an increase of 20% in the tax rate, but in reality the increase is from 0% to 20%, and it's hard to see why that's unfair.
The reason I say it's currently 0% is of course that for the wealthy most of these 5% gains are unrealized (e.g. inflation in the value of their assets) and untaxed.
The worst part is that even when they need to realize their profits, they have schemes that allow them to avoid taxes (guess how much taxes Musk paid for his $20B realized profits from his Tesla shares he sold to buy Twitter).
Instead, the are running straight for the full on land grab while distracting people with the details of technical loopholes of comparatively small consequence.
The "example" discussing paying income tax on your $5 of return on your capital is similar nonsense. You don't pay anything on that gain unless it's income, which it isn't unless it's realized. So (assuming the various parameters of a wealth tax meant this mythical $100 person would indeed pay a wealth tax), the comparison is between zero income tax and some nonzero amount of wealth tax.
> None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
Plenty of politicians (e.g., Bernie Sanders, AOC) have pointed out that the top income tax rate during the 1950s was over 90%, and have suggested raising rates back or near to that level, which would be well more than a 20% increase in the income tax rate.
The more obvious reason to not tax wealth is because it's hard to measure, and if you try to do it you will incentivize hiding it. Meanwhile, there are obvious obvious loopholes that the ultra-wealthy enjoy which could be reasonably closed. Namely, close the buy-borrow-die loophole, don't allow step-up basis for inherited wealth, and tax capital gains at least as much as income. Now people with a lot of money can afford to fund a lot of premium think tanks to come up with fancy economic reasoning why those ideas are Really Bad™, but at this point it's clear that's bullshit propaganda and the unintended consequences are exceedingly unlikely to be worse than the current unchecked consolidation of wealth and power enabled by the current loopholes.
There's never a requirement to vote your shares. I've never cast a single shareholder vote in my life. The fund could be legally required to not exercise any votes.
> be a party to lawsuits
Since when are shareholders a party to lawsuits? It's called limited liability for a reason.
> Do you want Trump getting control of the board
I'd normally say "legally structure it so that doesn't happen" and "follow best practices".But laws only mean anything if someone enforces them. If the government doesn't function correctly no government function can work correctly.
All proposals focus on ultra-wealthy individuals. This "momentousness" wouldn't really touch the absolute vast majority of the taxpayers.
But, yeah, I bet the targeted people are getting nervous.
Heck, it's even started in the UK with labour killing off salary sacrifice pensions, everyone one I know was reliant on those to be able to retire, but who gives a shit, we are private sector and we have no union!
I'm on a rant here, forgive me.
The language politicians use to sell to a general public does not have any correlation to their understanding of the mechanics. The people proposing this policy entirely understand the ramifications. That is the point of the policy.
The average person is already subject to something like a wealth tax through property taxes, in addition to also needing to pay taxes on their income. Join the club pal.
Yes! A tax system that incentivizes productivity! You for president! I would vote for this so f*** hard!
In the US the max federal tax rate is 20% on capital gains, that is the gains realized when you typically sell an asset. The max tax rate on ordinary income is 37%. Some states don't tax at capital gains at all. Others make also tax capital gains.
There are a myriad of loopholes to defer and minimise capital gains ranging from QSBS (first 10mil in small businesses) to trusts to foundations to offset losses. Billionaires are incentivised to hold their assets and let them accrue rather than deploying that capital.
Yes, you could argue that billionaires have earned his billions. But could you really argue that the tax system should be configured to reward them for sitting on those billions and those gains should be taxed at a rate lower than someone working every day to earn 200k in wage income?
The economy has a fundamental division between those who earn income off the gains on assets, and those who earn an income on wages. Wealth taxes help level the playing field by those who already have a tax system in their favor.
Trickel down economics does not work when you earn more holding on to what you have.
1. Wealthy more or less means able to live off the investments (passive income). Usually it means live off the interest of the interest (generally assessed as 8 million bucks nest egg)
2. It’s an obvious logical step but it is literally impossible for everyone to be independently wealthy. As in everyone cannot have a passive income.
3. So this debate just chnages when we ask “how do we make everyone wealthy” we can’t given the definition we have.
4. So we have to change the definition
5. How can we make everyone in society share fairly in the wealth that society has?
6. What if we made it much harder for wealth to Snowball into more wealth pulling it away from middle class
7. What if instead of a foolish wealth tax where we assess wealth, we stick to the “freely entered into transaction situation”
8. So Capital Gains taxes at same rates as income Also tax the “borrow till you die” idea - over a certain yearly amount, borrowing against your assets (ie Deutsche Bank lending you 100M against 1M shares of Blurb corporation should be treated as income just as if you sold the shares.)
I know that get hard but in the end we need money to circulate.
That’s how everyone shares
Being able to borrow against assets is a pretty essential part of the present-day economy. Almost everybody does it, from the very poorest taking out a car-title loan (however ill-advised) to middle-class people with home equity loans to medium sized businesses and farms who often have loans against their entire assets in order to buy more equipment or keep their operations going.
The idea is that taking a secured loan out using an asset as collateral would be a taxable event for that asset.
That is to say, if you buy a house for $400,000 and it appreciates to be worth $850,000 then take a home equity loan out against the house, you would owe capital gains on the $450,000 appreciation.
With the current $250,000 capital gains exclusion for primary residence, this would result in ~$30,000 of capital gains tax.
Doesn't that puts valuations in the hands of people who could conspire to manipulate them, creating false data points?
For example, suppose you bought something for $25 a long time ago, and it has, very unofficially, appreciated to ~$100.
I could lend you $100, and the contract will say that I'm only asking for it to be partially secured with collateral, which will be, oh that "$25" asset which obviously hasn't appreciated in value at all. Poof, no gains tax.
I think the real issue here has to do with dodges in the Estate Tax, which is the endgame that these delaying games are meant to reach.
I certainly agree with the estate / inheritance tax (the main issue is “resetting” the value to market at point of inheritance)
But as for the valuation problem I think that can only stretch so far. If you put up a million shares of $TechFirm as collateral for a loan to buy a yacht, it’s hard to claim they aren’t worth what the NYSE listed them as. If instead you put up 250,000 shares as partial collateral the bank has to put the missing collateral on its balance sheet (else some one is committing fraud)
The thing is it’s common. We on HN know all about “borrow till you die”, that Trump got Mar-a-lago valued at a billion dollars. The problem is not banks doing favours for valued clients, it’s so common and normalised that we don’t notice.
I think some relevant factors are missing. What is the polite way of putting it... Ah right! You are a clown!
> None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
Income tax is progressive. So, not really.
Currently the country with the highest marginal income tax rate is Denmark, at 60.5%. The top US federal tax rate is 37%, and the median state income tax rate is Oklahoma's, which is 4.75%. So in the median case, a state adding an additional 20% in income tax would have a total marginal tax rate of 37% + 4.75% + 20%, or 61.75%. [3]
In the median case, US state politicians talking about adding a "mere 1%" wealth tax are talking about causing the residents of their state to have the highest taxes in the world. That's not the sort of decision you make lightly.
It should be noted that the marginal tax rate for high earners in the USA was higher than 60% from the 1930s through the 1970s.
Chart here: https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/newsroom/income/the-histo...
If I were an actual billionaire -- say, my net worth was $2B -- then my one-time tax under California’s proposal would be $100M, leaving me with a net worth of $1.9B. Under that 5% risk-free rate of return, I would recover that amount of money within one year even if my income were $0, which seems exceedingly unlikely.
One can argue about the specifics of various proposals -- the Tax Foundation, for example, thinks California’s proposal has “aggressive design choices and possible drafting errors” that could lead to somewhat bonkers results, although I haven’t seen any critiques of their analysis yet -- but a wealth tax cannot be converted to income tax in a reasonable manner any more than a VAT could be converted to property tax. They’re both taxes, but they’re simply not the same kind of tax. And while I don’t mean to cap on Paul here, there’s a distinct “woe, pity the poor billionaires who will surely be driven to bankruptcy” subtext I find to be risible nonsense.
Maybe he should spend his time trying to work with these politicians to design something that is more fair? Like making it actually act as a tax on unrealized gains over $1B (so that it takes cost basis into consideration) OR make it so that if you need to sell some assets to pay the tax, you can writeoff the wealth tax you paid from your regular/capital-gains income so that you aren't taxed twice? There's a lot of actually useful stuff he could write about in this policy area instead of blogging about the financial equivalence between stocks and flows.