Get your free personalized podcast brief

We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.

Wealth is accumulated from after-tax income. Taxing it again punishes saving and prevents the concentration of capital essential for funding high-risk, innovative projects that drive society forward. Most countries that try it abandon it.

Related Insights

A small fraction of innovators and entrepreneurs creates most of a society's economic value, following a power law distribution. Socialist policies that over-tax this group to flatten outcomes ultimately break the incentive structure, stalling the entire economic engine and leaving no wealth to redistribute.

When governments view successful citizens' wealth as their own rightful property, they become predatory. This mindset drives high-net-worth individuals to leave, as seen in 1970s Sweden and modern New York, ironically destroying the very tax base needed for social programs.

Despite voter popularity, broad wealth taxes are historically ineffective. Most OECD countries have abandoned them due to low revenue, administrative complexity, and capital flight. A more practical approach is to focus on targeted reforms like closing the carried interest loophole and taxing capital gains as ordinary income.

Societal prosperity relies on harnessing the competitive drive of the hyper-ambitious few who sacrifice everything to build extraordinary things. Disincentivizing this small group with heavy taxes or regulations stifles the innovation that pulls the broader population, including the middle class, forward.

Rather than increasing revenue, wealth taxes incentivize the wealthy to leave, shrinking the tax base. As seen in New York, this forces the government to eventually broaden the tax to lower income brackets to cover the deepening deficit.

When states or nations impose wealth taxes, the wealthy often relocate, as seen when New York's governor told them to leave. This erodes the tax base. Since government spending rarely decreases, officials are forced to broaden the tax to lower income brackets, ultimately increasing the burden on the middle class.

The public debate over wealth taxes is often a facile "for vs. against" argument. Economist Gary Stevenson argues this is intentional. The real issue is a lack of funding and political will to design them effectively, allowing politicians to propose populist but flawed versions with built-in loopholes to appease donors.

The historical record shows that wealth taxes cause capital flight on such a large scale that they ultimately reduce a government's total tax revenue. For example, after France introduced one, 42,000 millionaires left with €200 billion, forcing the government to later abolish the tax.

While popular on the American left, direct wealth taxes have a poor track record in Europe. Countries like France, Sweden, Germany, and others discarded them because they were too complex to administer and ultimately failed to generate enough revenue to be worthwhile. This historical precedent presents a significant practical challenge for proposals like the one in California.

Instead of taxing unrealized gains, which forces asset sales and creates economic distortions, a more sensible approach is to tax the cash that wealthy individuals borrow against their assets. This targets actual liquidity and avoids punishing the long-term investment that builds the economy.