Get your free personalized podcast brief

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

The UK's attempt to tax "non-domiciled" residents is a case study in poor policy design. It targets the most mobile group of wealthy individuals—foreign billionaires with foreign assets—who can easily leave. A smarter policy would tax immobile domestic assets, which cannot escape the jurisdiction's tax authority.

Related Insights

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.

Billionaire wealth is largely illiquid and tied to asset values. A large-scale wealth tax would force mass sales, crashing the market value of those assets. The money is only 'there' on paper until you try to actually collect it, at which point its value collapses.

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 proposed tax on billionaires' assets isn't about the billionaires themselves, who hold a fraction of national wealth. The real goal is to establish the legal precedent for a private property tax. Once normalized, this mechanism can be extended to the middle class, where the vast majority of assets reside.

A toxic combination of a high tax burden and a cultural climate that treats successful entrepreneurs as "evil" is driving them to leave the country. This creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of pessimism, as the very people needed for growth and innovation are incentivized to relocate.

Threatening to confiscate wealth from the most mobile people incentivizes them to leave. This capital flight has already begun in response to the proposal, proving such policies ultimately reduce the state's long-term tax revenue by driving away the very people they aim to 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.

Billionaire wealth taxes are easily dodged by relocating. A more robust policy would tax capital gains based on the jurisdiction where the value was created, preventing billionaires from moving to a zero-tax state just before selling stock to avoid taxes.

Citing his firsthand experience with France's wealth tax, Manny Roman argues such policies often prove disastrous. The wealthy are mobile and can "vote with their feet" by moving to lower-tax jurisdictions like Belgium or Switzerland. This mobility undermines the intended tax base, rendering the policy ineffective.

The UK's 'Non-Dom' Tax Proves You Shouldn't Target Foreign Billionaires with Foreign Assets | RiffOn