Wealth Taxes Won't Work
It's neither a new idea nor a good one.

Back in the pre-COVID days of 2019, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) proposed an annual "wealth tax" of 2 percent on assets for households worth more than $50 million, plus additional surtaxes on households worth $1 billion or more. There were several problems with the idea.
Such a tax would be incredibly difficult to administer, requiring tax authorities to regularly assess and value unusual assets like art collections. It might drive wealthy individuals and households to move their holdings to other countries with more favorable tax policies, as has happened in multiple countries. Most wealthy Western democracies that have experimented with wealth taxes eventually ended them.
Warren pitched her plan as a way to make the "tippy top 0.1% of U.S. households" pay "their fair share," providing revenue to "accelerate badly needed investments in the middle class." But a wealth tax was not a novel way to tax the rich; it was a dodgy policy that had been repeatedly tried and repeatedly failed.
Also, it is probably unconstitutional, since Article I of the Constitution prohibits any "capitation, or other direct, tax," except when taxes are extracted proportionally to the population of a state. It would at minimum invite lengthy court challenges.
Warren's wealth tax didn't make it out of the Democratic primary. President Joe Biden proposed a tax on households with high net worths as part of an early spending proposal, but his more modest plan also went nowhere, even though Democrats controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House.
One might have expected that to be the end of the matter. But in politics, bad ideas never die. What does not fly in D.C. might still have a chance in the states.
As the third year of Biden's presidency began, a coalition of blue states began devising a wealth tax of their own. In January 2023, lawmakers in California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Nevada, New York, Maryland, Illinois, and Washington cooked up a plan to impose a 1 percent tax on "extreme wealth"—a threshold set at $50 million per household—and a 1.5 percent tax on wealth in excess of $1 billion.
That idea, spearheaded by California Assembly Member Alex Lee (D–Palo Alto), faces a legal obstacle in his state, where a constitutional provision caps the tax rate on personal property at 0.4 percent. Lee's proposal pairs the California version with a constitutional amendment that would bypass the cap.
The fact that one of the bluest states in the nation would have to rewrite its constitution to impose the tax raises questions about its wisdom and political viability. Lee nevertheless sounded positively Warrenesque in a press release touting the plan's benefits. "With this modest tax on the ultra-wealthy who pay a lower effective tax rate than the bottom 99%," he said, "we would have sustained investments in our schools, tackle homelessness, maintain and expand needed services, and much more."
Lee assumes that high–net worth individuals would stay in California to pay the tax, which, in addition to the financial burden, would require them to file yearly reports on illiquid assets. Lee insisted that California need not worry about out-migration or capital flight. Between 2011 and 2020, he noted, California ranked "among the lowest of states in terms of residents with incomes above $200,000 leaving in an average year."
That ranking omits the pandemic years of 2021 and 2022, which were marked by migrations of highly paid remote workers from expensive locales to cheaper, lower-tax pastures like Florida and Texas. Furthermore, the upper-income salary earners captured by the numbers that Lee cited may not be representative of the billionaires and high-net-worth households that would be subject to the wealth tax. Marc Joffe, a state policy analyst at the Cato Institute, notes that billionaires often pay so much in taxes that even the loss of a few could depress state tax revenues.
The wealth tax has failed before. Progressive lawmakers will continue trying to make it happen—and likely keep failing.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I even have made $17,180 only in 30 days straightforwardly working a few easy tasks through my PC. Just when I have lost my office position, I was so perturbed but at last I’ve found this simple on-line employment & this way I could collect thousands simply from home. Any individual can try this best job and get more money online going this article…..
.
.
This Website➤—————————————-➤ https://Www.Coins71.Com
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do.....
For more detail visit the given link..........>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
"Warren pitched her plan as a way to make the "tippy top 0.1% of U.S. households" pay "their fair share,"...
This is how someone who was a Harvard faculty member speaks in the Senate. Another example of the Clown World timeline.
is harvard's endowment fund going to pay the wealth tax?
Google pay 200$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12000 for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it outit.. ???? AND GOOD LUCK.:)
HERE====)> GOOGLE WORK
I like my plan a lot better. It involves removing democrats from government, industry, and media. Then permanent exile for the true believers, and treason trials for their leaders. Of course there will be no more democrat party.
The end.
Since I began blocking any (and every) poster who is advertising getting rich flashing their cootie at their webcam, it seems only about 1/3 of the posters are actually posting, and 2/3 are advertising their webcam skin show.
Taxing the rich is a popular slogan across a broad swath of political viewpoints. It is also difficult if not impossible to do and talking about a wealth tax is easier than writing one. Americans are undertaxed for the services received and that can only be corrected by tax increases or service cuts. Neither option, taken alone or together, is popular. I think new taxes, wealth or other, are unlikely to happen and the best option is to adjust existing taxes as necessary in return for reasonable spending cuts.
This is as much a dream as the wealth taxes, but sometimes a man has to dream.
"Americans are undertaxed for the services received"
This. And this is with the rich already paying the most significant portion of the tax burden, despite the propaganda to the contrary.
The American middle class either needs to get on board with paying tax levels commensurate with countries that give away the free goodies they want, or cutting services.
As a refresher for those needing one:
2020
Top 1% - paid 42% of all taxes
Top 10% - paid 74% of all taxes
Top 25% - paid 88.5% of all taxes
The top quartile of the country is funding NEARLY THE ENTIRE TAX BILL.
The 'tax the rich' rhetoric is for indoctrinated bubble dwellers that cant do basic research. The middle class needs to start paying, or we need to cut medicare and social security. The free goodies bonanza needs to end
We already have the most progressive tax rates in the OECD.
Progressives should try living (and paying taxes) in some utopia like Denmark, including taxes to support the national church.
Not sure what these benefits are that I am receiving and I don't think I asked for them. Therefore I am not going to quietly submit to tax increases.
You will get potholes and you will like them.
And 80,000 new IRS agents.
Police and military are the essentials, and the government also wastes it's money on a bunch of other stuff.
If people don't pay enough taxes, they will pay through inflation unless spending is cut (which would be ideal).
And we do need a government because otherwise there would be anarchy. Whoever is the best at fighting would be able to tyrranise and rule over others.
And that's why we need a democratically elected government to control a significant minority of the fighting power to prevent people from tyrranising, murdering, stealing from each other or breaking each others' contracts.
Of course, the government does far more than it's supposed to.
re: "Americans are undertaxed for the services received"
You're going to have to prove that point rather than simply assume it. The demonstrated level of graft, corruption, unnecessarily duplicative efforts and outright waste strongly belies your claim.
That said, I do agree that balancing the budget will require more than just rooting out corruption and waste - it will require tax increases, service cuts or (more likely) both. I also agree that our current crop of politicians and bureaucrats are incompetent to the task. I fear that it's going to take an external crisis to force discipline from the outside. The continued decline of the dollar's status as global reserve currency will probably be that external crisis.
Given that about 50% of US households pay no net federal tax, and many of those "pay" negative taxes, they are clearly under-taxed--at least compared to the other 50%.
You could cut military spending by 33%, entitlements by 10%, and everything else by 20% and the budget would be balanced without raising taxes.
Get out of NATO, fire every single DEI coordinator in the federal government, and abolish public sector unions.
YES! A thousand times yes.
If only politicians were actually willing to do this.
And most of the alphabet agencies like the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, FDA etc.
Americans are under taxed based on unconstitutional and frivolous democrat spending. Not relative to legitimate spending. Get rid of the democrats and their spending.
Problem solved.
I grew up in Benewah County, ID. At the time Benewah County had the highest per Capita number of millionaires in the state. I made that remark to my father, who proceeded to inform me that is based on assets, largely in that county, agricultural and timber land. He stated the farmer I worked for was considered one of those 'millionaires' and then asked me if Tom actually was a millionaire? Tom didn't own a vehicle less than ten years old, lived in a home that was built before he was born, an old Sears-Roebucks kit home (they were quite common in farm country), and often was lucky to break even each year. That really brought home the difference between assessed wealth and liquid wealth. Another family we knew also was one of those 'millionaires', but was on occasion on food stamps and the head of the family worked and farmed, but they owned a lot of land (most of which was in pasture and timber). They lived in a 20 year old single wide trailer, and I doubt they ever owned a new vehicle. Basically, I wonder how many people understand the difference between assessed wealth and actual wealth? How many people are considered millionaires who have never seen a million dollars in their bank accounts?
And of course, if these folks were required to pay such a tax, the only possible way to do so would be by selling the land.
Which is what the democrats want.
It sounds like the mantle of wealth lies heavily on Tom's narrow shoulders. My guess he inherited his wealth from luckier, smarter, or harder working forebearers. Let's hope when it comes time to sell, his buyers have enough gumption not to rely on food stamps. If Tom's wealth only sits idle without generating any further economic activity, it's only natural that the state wants it in the hands of someone who delivers economic growth.
Tom was one of the hardest working people you would ever meet, but farming isn't a wealth maker. He drove old trucks because he didn't waste money, and he could work on them himself. He expected a full days work out of us, and paid us fairly for it. Yes, he inherited his land and worked it until he died (there really is no such thing as a retired farmer, it's more a lifestyle than a career). Some years he made bank, other years he was lucky to break even, that's how farming goes (and ranching). For every year you hit the bonanza, you have two or three where your crop sells at or below break even. You live on credit. Have a close relationship with your banker. The point is, his wealth was his land, passed down from his father and grandfather who homesteaded it. He barely graduated high school, but all his children graduated college. He was a millionaire only on paper, and some of his paychecks probably topped six or even seven figures, but most of that went to paying his loans. He never cleared nearly that much. He also was never on food stamps, that was my other friend, whose land was much more marginal. If he cut every tree, and sold every acre of pasture, he might have a million dollars (but unlikely, because you almost never achieve assessed value when you sell out). But even if you cut every tree, what do you do the next year? What the government or the banker says you're worth isn't reality. It's purely hypothetical and rarely ever is even close, especially with timber and agricultural land.
I understand the points you are making. I grew up in farm country myself. My point is that the state has very little interest in maintaining subsistence farmers like Tom, and orchestrates transferring the enterprise to agribusiness, which is a better bet at fostering economic growth, the state's prime objective. Agribusiness is more likely to convert 'paper wealth' to something tangible.
It's also why inheritance taxes are so bad.
It's why so many farmers and ranchers list themselves as LLC, to avoid the inheritance tax. Almost every single 'corporate' farm is actually a family farm organized as a corporation for tax, inheritance and insurance reasons.
Hell, even many of the big food companies, such as Darigold and Land O Lake are actually farner owned co-ops. The myth of mega corporation owning farms is just that, mostly a myth. Tyson doesn't own its own poultry and pork raising farms they contract those services out. They might actually own the chickens but they contract with a farmer to grow them (the same with pork). And everyone basically wins in that system. Tyson has an insured product line, the farmers don't have to own stock, just raise it and have a guaranteed contract, the consumer gets a cheaper product. JBS is trying the same thing with beef (though they do also own their own land) but beef ranchers tend to be a little to independent to want to go that route. Beef ranchers tend to be in it for the lifestyle as much as for the paycheck. I work so I can afford to ranch, not ranch so I can afford to live. Maybe that's not the best business sense, but I wouldn't trade it for anything. I even would take mending fences over my previous nine to five salaried position. Last year I set the bank at auction, this year I finished in the bottom half. Last year the buyers wanted bigger calves, this year they wanted smaller calves (it's always that way when beef prices are high and grain prices are high, it takes a lot more space to explain it than I care to in a internet post, but smaller calves actually make larger profits for the feeders, especially when grain is high). Yellowstone actually gets the reality of the business side of ranching pretty accurate (even if we don't take our enemies to the train station). Maybe because both Taylor Sheridan and Kevin Costner run ranches (which I'm sure they take a loss on as often as it pays off). Also, the land and water use issues and the increasing property values/taxes related to urbanization, especially in the Bozeman area, is fairly accurate.
I did not know any of that, thanks for the info.
"Tyson doesn’t own its own poultry and pork raising farms they contract those services out. "
Adding extra complexity, administration and levels of bureaucracy is the logic of the state.
"I work so I can afford to ranch, not ranch so I can afford to live. "
I suppose such independent, hands-on farming will become increasingly marginal. Especially if there's competition with urban centers for scarce resources like water.
I think most people equate wealth with dollars. So if someone is a millionaire then they’ve got a million dollars in the bank they can pay taxes with. These people then dismiss belongings (actual wealth) as mere stuff. As a result they’re shocked when these same millionaires you’re talking about have to sell the farm to some conglomerate in order to pay death taxes (because they don't have money in the bank), resulting in the expansion of the corporate farming that they rail against when they’re not screaming about the rich not paying their fair share.
They think every rich person is Scrooge McDuck.
Come on. Tom is clearly a greedy capitalist who does not pay his fair share.
I guess no one remembers CA Proposition 13.
"I guess no one remembers CA Proposition 13."
Oh, I do. Like many things, "it seemed like a good idea at the time, what could possibly go wrong?"
I do; it was a good start.
A wealth tax certainly would work - it would drive out all the wealthy and then everybody else would be more equal. The purpose of a wealth tax isn't to make the poor better off, it's to punish the rich.
"The purpose of a wealth tax isn’t to make the poor better off, it’s to punish the rich."
Substitute "socialism / equity" for wealth tax and you have the broader picture
"Tax and tax and tax some more, until the rich are rich no more."
Pretty much. I few weeks ago a streamer named Mr. Beast paid for 1000 people to get eye surgery. Numerous leftists (several who are rich themselves) attacked him for it.
The purpose of a wealth tax isn't to generate revenue. It is to destroy wealth. How does Lizzie know the rich haven't paid their fair share? Well, they're still rich. If they paid their fair share then they wouldn't be rich anymore. So the only possible way to satisfy her and the envious people she represents is to eliminate the rich. Sinch she can't get away with murdering them like the collectivists of the last two centuries, she'll settle for stealing everything they own.
No. The purpose of a real wealth tax is to
a) change the behavior of the wealthy so that eg a Jeff Bezos encourages Amazon to pay dividends to share owners rather than force shareowners to sell their shares to get a return on investment.
b)create a broader tax base that equalizes the tax burdens on different classes and can also then lower marginal rates on each part of the base. See Switzerland.
That's not the purpose of a Warren/etc. Their purpose is simply to punish in order to get votes.
The nanosecond I see a Reason article re wealth tax that includes Switzerland...it will be the first. Absent that, the sole purpose of these articles is to spread heat not light.
As an example - the reason Switzerland at the federal level can have both a large income exclusion (30k i think) and a low top marginal income tax (12% i think) is because they aren't trying to force the entire tax base onto the middle class (income). They have federal taxes on sales, income, and wealth - but a lower federal tax burden than the US has seen in the last 80+ years.
a) if people are penalized for creating wealth, they will create less wealth. Thus a wealth tax destroys wealth. Also, wealth is not money.
b) when you factor in government transfers of money, the poor pay no taxes. The middle class pays no taxes. The upper middle pays some, and the rich pay the rest. Thus it’s not about making taxes more fair.
Because foreseeable consequences are not unintended, the intention of a wealth tax is to destroy wealth.
In a system where taxes are generated solely on income, the penalty is to disincentivize jobs. The narrower any tax base, the higher the marginal rate and the more disincentivizing the behavior. The broader the tax base, the lower the marginal rate and the less distorting the behavior
But the absolutist anarcho argument is fraudulent bs. And yes tax burdens CAN be both fair and overall low – and Switzerland is an excellent example. Not that anything like that can happen here because we are basically dishonest about all public discussion.
Seriously - your argument is horseshit. Switzerland is transparently not a wealth destroying country. WTF.
It’s the equivalent of a small state. Just because something might work in Vermont doesn’t mean it will scale up to the entire country.
Aah. The perpetual excuse that America can only emulate India, China, and Indonesia. Therefore, we are the greatest. USA USA
Think about what a wealth tax is. It’s a tax on what you buy and keep with what’s left of your income after that was taxed. Do you have a 401K? If so you’ve got wealth. How would you pay a tax on your retirement? Especially after you retire. It’s being sold as soaking the rich. So was the income tax. How long before a tax on capital affects everyone with stocks and such? Not long.
Bezos musk etc didn't accumulate their wealth via income.
The end goal here is to go after retirement accounts. That’s where most of the wealth is. Bezos owns 9.7% of Amazon. That’s it. You think they’re only going to tax 9.7% of Amazon stock? Heck no. They want their share of that juicy 90.3%. As in everyone’s retirement accounts.
Every Democrat, " STEAL MORE!!!!!!!!!!!"
Imagine no possessions.
Such a tax would be incredibly difficult to administer, requiring tax authorities to regularly assess and value unusual assets like art collections.
"Think of the JOBS!!"
It's not difficult to administer at all. Every wealthy person insures their assets. That means they have just assigned a legal contracted value -enforceable by a govt court - in the event the property gets stolen and has to be replaced.
Course if they don't want to insure their assets and use that as the basis for government protecting those assets, then I agree nothing to tax and nothing to whine about if it gets stolen.
re: "Every wealthy person insures their assets."
No, they don't. In fact, the vast majority of truly wealthy carry no insurance at all (beyond the legally-required minimums). They opt instead to self-insure. They can afford to take the risk that any one event will turn out badly and accept the risk because the insurance premiums (which include the insurance carrier's profits) exceed the value. Insurance is a service valuable only to those of us who can't afford the sudden loss.
No they don't. Even if they were inclined to self-insure their Picassos, they don't earn much income. They borrow against their assets, play the tax games, and their lender will demand insurance coverage.
the day people stop reporting on the lunacy of Elizabeth Warren will be beautiful.
I've made $1250 so far this week working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here's what I do,for more information simply.
Open this link thank you.....................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Warren pitched her plan as a way to make the "tippy top 0.1% of U.S. households" pay "their fair share,"
Then, to show that she identified with the working class, decided she would "have a beer", and then stared at the label on the bottle as if she was looking for opening instructions.
tomahawk?
Nah, Lizzie is totally blue collar. PBR.
I'd like to hear exactly what people think a "fair share" is. And why they don't think that the wealthy are paying it.
Tyranny
Other countries have tried to tax wealth. They failed and withdrew the tax. It will fail here, but it will close the jaws of even even faster.
Already, the Internal Revenue Service has made it difficult, if not impossible, for us “U.S. persons” to open or maintain banking accounts in foreign countries. It did this not by outlawing them but by imposing reporting requirements on off-foreign banks even if those banks have no presence in the USA, a practice known as extra-territoriality. The purpose is not to identify criminals or terrorists. Ninety percent of these regulations involve taxation. Consequence? Economic tyranny. What typically follows? Political and social tyranny, which we currently are witnessing.
“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy.” -Daniel Webster (1819)
The income-tax has fostered all that had affrighted both Federalists and Anti-Federalists. It gave the federal government unbridled power to invade the privacy of every American — adult and child — and selectively to destroy individual persons, single enterprises, and whole industries.
Its enforcing agency, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), has operated in a manner similar to the Nazi’s Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) or the Secret State Police in Germany. Its tyrannical tactics illustrate the worst sort of economic management by punishing rather than rewarding creativity and productivity. Worse, in promoting dishonesty, the income tax makes criminals of most Americans, even accountants, who find the increasing complexity and laborious length of its so-called code and the forms derived therefrom invidious, incomprehensible, and intolerable. Americans spend more than 6-billion, counter-productive hours annually to comply with the federal tax-code. Moreover, it is being used politically to persecute organizations and persons repeatedly while guilty bureaucrats within the IRS go unpunished for their illegal acts even when made public.
A tax on wealth? The jaws of evil are closing.
https://www.nationonfire.com/the-jaws-are-closing/ .
Don't tax the rich. Tax the poor.
We already have a wealth tax - it's called real estate tax. Thomas Piketty makes a good case for a broad wealth tax in "Capital in the 21st Century," but even he sees practical problems with implementation.
I've made $1250 so far this week working online and I'm a full time student. I'm using an online business opportunity I heard about and I'AM made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here's what I do,for more information simply.
Open this link thank you.....................>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Wealth Taxes Won’t Work So the liberal idiots in California are going to try “wealth utility payments”.
They are going to charge people not on usage, but on income for electric, gas and water utilities. Which is basically a tax, those making more will be subsidizing those making less. I can already for see usage increasing substantially, why conserve is someone else is paying your bills?
I have told you before, If you have a brain in your head, leave Kommie Kalifonia.
The Democrats are trying to make an argument that the purpose of taxes are not just to fund government’s operations but also to limit what one might have.
Does Virginia still have a Personal Property Tax? I remember that from when I worked there in the late 1980's, and it's the reason I avoided becoming an actual resident. For instance, you paid a percentage of the value of your car every year. I don't know if it would also cover an investment account, art, or a huge wardrobe, because I didn't have significant money in any of those back then.
the correct answer is that a wealth tax is an egregious rollback of private property rights
I think the observation that it will not even achieve its ostensible utilitarian goal is not unimportant.
Can't help but make me think. Wait till reparations get brought to the fore in a few years. It will be the same as always. Reason will cede the Statist/Collectivist ground and quibble over the details.
The problem is, the libertarian argument against wealth taxes would only persuade the people who already oppose wealth taxes.
Also, wealth taxes aren't much worse than other taxes from a libertarian standpoint.
The correct answer is that a wealth tax is completely unconstitutional. And, theft.
But Reason can't go full libertarian, right?
Reason can’t go 1/4 libertarian.
My first reaction to the idea of a wealth tax was that the wording of the Constitution would forbid it. But - BUT - the Constitution says "what the Supreme Court says it says" - black lines on paper have no fixed meaning (and only the benighted or the insurgent would disagree). I think the slide away from actual meaning started with Wickard vs. Filburn, but may go back even further than that. (Look it up if you have a little spare time and you're curious about just how far foolishness can be taken.)
So Lizzy, et al., pass their wealth tax. And some misled soul starts the lawsuit up the judicial food chain, until it reaches the Supreme Court (by then dominated by Biden and Newsome nominees), which rules that the Sixteenth Amendment bestows upon the government the previously denied right to tax incomes (it does). Further, they take judicial note that Congress's taxing power, within the constraints of the Constitution, is "plenary". And then comes the judicial coup de grace when they rule that wealth is nothing more than retained income, and as such, under the Sixteenth Amendment and other provisions of the Constitution, Congress can take as much of it as they want, as often as they want, and citizens can go pound sand, and if if they're smart keep their yap shut and not attract the attention of the Internal Revenue Service and the special agents of the Federal Agency for Right and Truth.
And if implemented, should cause Americans to remove the democrats and their collaborators.