I'm not an expert in this, but I thought one of the biggest arguments for why a wealth tax is needed the whole "buy, borrow, die" thing where the ultra rich can use their assets as collateral to take out a never ending series of ultra low interest loans until they die and then have most of the tax burden of selling assets to pay off those loans wiped out because the tax code is much more favorable to selling assets to pay off the debt of someone's estate.
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.
> To convert between wealth and income tax rates, you have to divide by the rate of return on capital. The conversion rate of 20 comes from assuming that the risk-free rate of return is 5%.
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.
On top of that it seems to imply that a 20% effective tax rate is outrageous even though that's totally normal for most. Maybe it's not what you're used to as really wealthy person who avoids realized income and has a 0 or 5 or 10 percent effective rate. But it's totally normal for most middle and median income folks who actually pay income taxes.
I can't tell what's worse: intentionally obscuring the fact that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax or unintentionally forgetting that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax.
I'm retired. I hope to get a 3% per year income from my savings every year after inflation and taxes. If my state implemented a 1% wealth tax on savings each year, I would go bankrupt in 20 years. I am hoping that I will live 20 years.
I'm sure any wealth tax would only apply to wealth above a certain amount. For instance, inheritance tax only applies to $15mil and above. Likewise, when you sell a house the first $500K (I believe) in capital gains from the sale is tax free.
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.
I can't tell is this is sarcasm or a serious point.
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.
> 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.
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?
> 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?
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.
Oh good! I was worried that trickle down economics was self-serving nonsense pushed by think tank economists on behalf of their benefactors. Since it is economic fact rather than self-serving fiction, when I review its track record I will find that it caused an upward inflection in real wages, right? Right?
Total labor compensation has in fact grown. Unfortunately, much of the non-wage compensation involves services like healthcare that has become a lot more expensive over time due to burdensome overregulation and an overall lack of price transparency.
And 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.
The current system without wealth taxes already largely divorces labor from equity stake. Unless you're one of the relatively few tech or office workers who get equity compensation or have a large savings rate, you currently don't have much of a stake in any means of production.
Why do I get the feeling that you would never field the structurally identical complaint against disproportionately taxing labor and consumption, even though that's a much more prominent feature of our current tax policy?
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.
Well for a start it pressurises asset holders to sell their assets.
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
> 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.
That can be quite a lot of people on HN, and also including FIRE people, so I can see why it's unpopular.
I think it’s a good point that these taxes don’t apply to most people. Another reason they don’t apply is that most people save for retirement using retirement accounts.
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.
Only in theory. In practice it’s not equivalent at all because once you reach a certain (very high) level of wealth, there’s the “buy, borrow, die” strategy that avoids realizing most of your capital gains. I’ve also heard of proposals to tax asset-backed loans above a certain threshold, which is aimed at the “borrow” part of the strategy. But the concern there is that the super wealthy may quickly find a different strategy for tax avoidance, so a blanket wealth tax should be harder to circumvent. But as with anything to do with the tax code, those with the best tax accountants and lawyers seldom end up losing.
There is no evidence[0] that the wealthy use the "buy, borrow, die" strategy in any significant way. The underlying financial math doesn't make sense if the goal is to maximize wealth so it isn't surprising that wealthy people don't actually do it.
I feel the same way. I hear a lot of complains about wealth tax but it always seems like the problems mainly pertain to billionaires. I don't see why we should optimize for that small minority.
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.
If you mean that a person with 0 savings pays 0 wealth tax, then sure. Most people when they earn income save some of it. Therefore it is wealth taxed.
Almost all wealth tax proposal I’ve seen start at the level of 8-9 figures of wealth. Why are we now talking about it as if it’s going to apply to your average person’s savings account? If we’re just going to accept these billionaire-invented narratives around the wealth tax, then there’s really no point in discussing the actual pros and cons of these proposals.
I think the assumption that we're looking for an equivalence here is fundamentally flawed and with it the entire post.
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
The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers, levied on people who have a lot more money and in some cases don't do anything resembling work. It's trivially true that 1% wealth taxes represent something in the region of a fifth of the average annual return on wealth, it's rather less convincing when it's suggested that this is harsh compared with income tax when people who pay more than half their much lower income in overall taxes whilst working 60 hour weeks and actually worrying about paying bills.
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...
> There are arguments about wealth taxes inducing capital flight and investment disincentives
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.
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.
This is simultaneously incredibly condescending and hopelessly naive. Politicians understand perfectly well that a 1% wealth tax is not a small tax on wealthy individuals. That's the whole point. They are engaging in basic political rhetoric when they say things like "a mere 1% tax".
> In fact the conversion rate between them is about 20. A wealth tax of 1% is equivalent to an income tax of 20%.
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.
> Wealth accumulates with no input once established.
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)
Step-up basis is important for anyone who inherits property from their parents. That can be substantial in places like California where real estate has gone up a lot.
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.
The step up basis makes sense in a world where you still have to pay substantial inheritance taxes. But with minimal to no inheritance taxes, the step up is a giveaway.
There is little evidence that wealthy people actually borrow for income in any significant way. For example, this paper[0] finds that borrowing only accounts for 1-2% of economic income among the top 1%.
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.
>...Additionally, wealthy people can use securities as collateral for near zero interest lifetime loans which also bypass having to pay income tax.
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.
There is a bit more to the story than a 1% wealth being "equivalent" to a 20% income tax. The primary difference is that unrealized gains are taxed by a wealth tax. We need a mechanism for assets to be sold by the richest in society. If those with assets keep accruing more assets the median person will suffer. When we're talking about real assets (housing, retail shops, warehouses, land) we don't need to be concerned about capital flight. The assets are still there on the ground. Reducing the cost of those assets is exactly what we need to help a local economy.
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.
When more assets are sold than are bought, that leads to the destruction of assets on a broad scale. It's the economic equivalent of eating one's seed corn. This would not be good for the median person. You can and should tax land (meaning the land value component of real estate in general) and natural resources more generally, but that's an entirely different game: it has next to nothing to do with wealth taxes as generally understood.
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?
If you are wealthy enough, you can live off of untaxed loans from your “unrealized” gains, and never pay taxes on that money at any rate. Meanwhile, I am paying an effective tax rate of around 35%.
The principle is simple: if you are spending the money, your gains are realized, and you should pay taxes.
Loans against unrealized gains should just be taxed directly as income. Not indirectly creating more loopholes. Same way stock buybacks should be taxed at the same rate as short term capital gains.
Stop thinking about taxes as a way to fund the government.
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.
I don’t follow the debate and situation in the US that closely but isn’t (part of) the point of wealth tax to offset the fact that rich people are routinely avoiding paying income tax and taxes in general? Thus even if we assume the simplistic conversion here, it’s not that they’re moved from 40->60 bracket but more like <10 -> <30 ?
Yes. And that wealthy individuals are avoiding taxes via things like buy -> borrow -> die, in which high stock valuations that increase but are not sold are not ever taxed, and roll over the taxation potential upon death to their current value. Thus by borrowing against them until death, the inheritor will inherit with a tax basis at the current value upon receipt and thus all taxes are avoided. In which case the tax would go from 0% to 20% (functionally a small amount may be sold to pay interest, so really assume 1% or 2% taxes default). The horror!
The idea that rich people don't pay taxes is a myth. The top 5% richest people in America account for 60% of all of the federal income tax. The bottom 50% on the other hand only account for a total of 3%.
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.
Can you share a source? Of course the top 5% of _earners_ would pay more, but that's not necessarily the same crew as the top 5% in net worth. And 5% is a large share of the population. I'd be more interested in the top 1% of 1% in terms of wealth.
The wealth tax argument actually is because our current 2 party political system is set up to where politicians effectively "pay" their corporate constituency with their discretionary spending, which has increased the national debt substantially.
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.
> 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, even though that's mathematically the same thing. [2]
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.
There's a related calculation you can do -- what percent of your net worth is your employability? Take your salary, divide by 0.05 (or multiply by 20) -- if you had that much additional wealth earning 5%, you could replace your job's income.
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.
The argument is plausible - that you can treat wealth taxes as equivalent to income taxes if you treat wealth taxes as a tax on the ostensible income generation of the wealth.
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?
There's a secondary side effect of wealth taxes: they redirect investments (I'm Argentinian and we have wealth taxes).
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.
The bigger difference between an income tax and a wealth tax isn't the numbers. A wealth tax, for better or worse requires some realization of paper gains that very wealthy folks normally go to great lengths to avoid because their wealth is largely based on a broadly shared polite fiction. So imposing some realization of that wealth requires accountability that doesn't always pan out.
A much more interesting formula would be how to convert between income and income tax - you'd think it worked according to the superficial bracket system, but in fact, it works along the lines of going to 0 at the top.
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).
I think the limit it can reach without carried forward losses is 20% because that's the top long-term capital gains tax rate. The other thing I can think of is if you sell a QSBS business, then your capital gains are taxed at 0, and you wouldn't pay income tax at all on that money either. So it's in theory possible that someone could make millions tax free from selling a business, but that's a rare case and one the tax code explicitly allows for.
Not everybody uses money to make more money, Paul. Most people work, get paid, and spend the money on their needs. In other words, you are in a position to care about the question, it's OK if you are taxed a bit more.
Wow, I like to actually see the numbers laid out like this. Most of the ultra-wealthy pay almost nothing on their income taxes from investments because they have found ways to avoid capital gains, and even if they were paying long term capital gains rates of 15%, pg’s assertion that the wealth tax adds another 20% doesn’t seem unreasonable at all. If anything, it makes me think 1% is not nearly enough of a wealth tax!
I think that is the glaring hole here - via an insane number of instruments from the various investments, they can reduce their tax liability (fed and state) to be very close to 0%. I believe a main idea of the wealth tax is to get around the insanely complicated tax code w/ all its loopholes.
A lot of countries require you to declare your total wealth on your tax forms. Then once someone gets audited, that gets checked. Obviously it’s possible to hide it, but that in itself is a crime, and not everyone is willing to risk going to jail over paying taxes.
The first step we need to take is to invest in the IRS. Every dollar invested in the IRS returns between $5-9. Couple that with fines that offset the cost of auditing, and "hidden wealth" becomes a liability too expensive for people to bother with.
This argument strikes me as massively disingenuous. The central problem of the US tax system is caused by a combination of:
- 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.
The post goes out of it's way to mischaracterize the strategy (and purpose) of wealth taxes being proposed.
> Each 1% of wealth tax is equivalent to 20% of income tax.
Mathematically sound.
> Politicians understand that an additional 20% income tax would be a lot. And indeed a US state that added 20% to its top income tax rate would have extraordinarily high taxes.
That's the point.
> 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.
Not "all of the residents". Specifically the ultra wealthy that have a billion dollars. 20% at that point, is 20% of lots. You still have lots left over.
Mathematical fairness isn't the point, which is one reason there isn't a flat tax rate.
> > Each 1% of wealth tax is equivalent to 20% of income tax.
> Mathematically sound.
Don't most wealth taxes that have been proposed have a certain level of wealth that you pay no taxes on? If so, doesn't that make this at least partially incorrect?
Maybe I'm missing something, but if I have $100 and have to pay a 1% wealth tax on it then sure that's roughly 20%. If I have $100, but I only have to pay a 1% wealth tax on everything over $90 that's more like a 2% income tax.
I live in Switzerland. All residents are assessed a wealth tax. It would not be just the top x%. Wealth taxes are a bad idea tried in Europe and then later repealed.
If he can phone it in why cant I? His entire framing.
Income (or revenue), what is left over freom the paycheque (profits) and net worth (market cap) - applying a simple ratio to companies of revenue to market cap doesnt work, why would applying a simple ratio of income to net worth for people who live hand to mouth and billionaires work any better.
I think you may have missed the background: US tax rhetoric -- he's doing what I think is pretty fair math with a fair take -- the math is supposed to break down what percent income tax you need to get the same dollars in tax revenue as a 1% wealth tax (on the wealthy). I think you could quibble with his risk free rate of return number, but most conservative planners would recommend a 4 - 5 % budget for risk free rate of return.
It's not about companies - it's about showing an equivalency between a Piketty-style tax of wealth setup and what we're used to thinking about in the US, an income-style tax setup on individuals.
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.
Isn't PG's conflation of Denmark's high income tax with a proposed wealth tax a clear flaw in his math and argument re: "the highest taxes in the world"? Why wouldn't you instead compare to other countries that also have both income and wealth taxes?
There are numbers in this post, but only in the technical sense.
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.
The thing that all these asshole billionaires don't want anyone to think about is that not taxing wealth means that a person who primarily accumulates non-income capital only ever pays taxes on what they spend while the rest of us pay taxes on approximately everything we get regardless of whether we spend it.
Are there serious proposals to just add a wealth tax on top of the existing income tax that would apply to the sort of people who actually pay much in income tax vs capital gains? It's an honest question; I haven't seen proposals of that sort, so I'm skeptical that the arguments are meaningful here. For an individual like Jeff Bezos, he's paying virtually no tax under the normal income tax rates referenced in the article, but rather capital gains tax, which tops out at 20%, not 37%.
None that I've seen, though I'm sure somebody somewhere has introduced something.
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.
The conversion would be more accurate if it compared wealth and capital gains taxes, no?
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.
True enough, but it doesn't address the motivation or the issues presented by California's proposed wealth tax.
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.
Wealthy people are taking food out of my mouth by driving up asset prices, and deploying capital in ways that will never benefit me, either in employment or in quality of life. The premise of reducing taxes on wealthy people was that everyone would broadly benefit. This has not happened. The contract is broken. I want my money back.
> 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)
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.
I think the post is correct in a one-period sense, though I’m not sure the equivalence survives once you model long-term compounding, additional capital gains taxation and liquidity constraints.
The wealth tax that we should have is a federal property tax, in the form of a land-value tax. A property tax is more enforceable and produces much better incentives than an income tax or capital gains tax or death tax or wealth taxes in other forms.
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.
I think a lot of ink has been spilled on the problems with the proposed California Wealth tax, the main points being:
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?
Anymore I think the question shouldn't be about some kind of economic fairness (the time value of money thing being discussed) but the idea that wealth accumulation is a disease that afflicts society. I don't think anyone should have the level of control or influence on others that having a billion dollars currently allows. If a millionaire gives $100 to a political candidate it probably doesn't require too much thought. It's impressive to note that a 10-billionaire can give $1M just as easily, and so we have a class of folks who can throw around influence, who can order a team of lawyers to do things, can employ their legion of sycophantic followers to harass people, or can threaten the employment of many people not-of-their-class because they can make decisions that threaten someone's employer's bottom line. And note that above I compared a millionaire to the 10-billionaire, but there are plenty of folks, especially around the planet, who economically live several orders of magnitude below the millionaire.
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?
I know this is tangential to your main point, but in the US, you can only give a max of $3,500 to a candidate per election cycle, for each the primaries and general election.
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.
How do you think society works without wealth accumulation? There would be no incentive to innovate to push forward. You wouldn’t have your iPhone, computer, or car. Want to see the result of societies that forbid wealth creation? Go to Cuba.
It's an interesting question. If we lived in a universe in which we weren't in fear of losing access to basic necessities of food, shelter, and healthcare, but had to work to have anything beyond those, what would happen? I don't truly know and I don't believe we have done the experiment anywhere. But I do know that the system we have not only produces innovative products but also corruption, oligopolies, and steamrolls over labor and the environment if not regulated.
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.
Yet... an entire industry (financial advisors) will happily charge you a 1% "wealth tax" to manage your money. And you don't see lengthy articles from luminary venture capitalists about that.
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.
Paul the billionaire ignoring that billionaires often don't pay any income tax at all. Come on man, we're not stupid just because we don't own superyachts.
This is wrong. You can’t convert between the two because it’s possible to have a lot of wealth with very little (even zero) income. Billionaires can completely avoid income taxes by paying themselves a very low salary and instead borrowing money against their assets (usually stock), which is not taxed as income.
There are all kinds of irrevocable trusts that exist to remove assets from your taxable estate so that they can be passed to heirs without paying estate tax. Raising the estate tax (which is already 40%) would just make planning to use these techniques more attractive.
The existence of perpetual trusts is solvable in a world that has decided to fix the insanity caused by intergenerational wealth transfer instead of propping it up. "This thing we could also eliminate stops us from eliminating this other thing" is a silly platform. Just eliminate them both.
Lots of confusion and misunderstanding in these comments. Not surprising, given the highly charged nature of the subject. I highly recommend Ray Madoff's book The Second Estate [1] to learn more about the topic.
I believe some of Ray Madoff's points are that the tax code and most tax intuitions kinda differ.
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.
Here is a better algorithm to edify the masses: if someone is such a massive billionaire as to have the boldness to teach the public basic 5th-grade math, their wealth tax rate should be set at 10%. From that point on, the rate goes in proportion to their level of condescension.
Why choose the median state tax? The proposed wealth tax is in California, where the top tax rate is 13%. Also relevant would be Medicare (1.45% or 2.35% depending on your employment income) and presumably for billionaires, the Net Investment Income Tax, another 3.8%.
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.
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.
Here's a crucial mechanism that Paul Graham did not mention:
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.
> 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, even though that's mathematically the same thing. [2]
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.
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.
> Wealth tax is tax from sitting on your ass doing nothing.
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.
Because billionaires accumulate wealth through assets and unrealized gains, many of them skip taking a traditional income and pay. If the numbers in the links below are to be believed, according to paulgraham's calculations, this might bump them into a ~fair range (when comparing to average/median earners).
The real problem is our politicians aren't representing our people. All these other issues of wasteful spending and money printing and inflation and whatnot are downstream of that main crux of problem. People don't hate wealthy perse but when laypeople aren't provided proper means of living, they will try anything as a solution, even throwing a wrench in the system. That's how we got Trump.
Paul doesn't mention that these aren't exclusive. The California "Billionaires Tax" (which will likely soon become a "Millionaires Tax" after all the Billionaires exit the state), is levied on top of the regular state income tax.
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.
Thank you. This is exactly the problem- pg is twisting the conversation by saying "look how painful taxes are for you, pleb!" When in reality, the taxation levels on the ultra-wealthy (whom this is targeted toward) are so much smaller not only on a %'age level, but on an impact level as well.
> That's why I think few politicians currently understand how to convert between wealth and income taxes. You can tell from the way they talk about the subject that they don't understand the momentousness of what they're proposing. But I'm optimistic that we can teach them. The answer's not hard to understand, once you realize the question exists.
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.
>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, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
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.
> 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, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
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…
> 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%
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.
Completely ignores the true distinction between wealth and income taxes.
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.
I think Paul thinks people care about the distinction, or think that a 20% marginal increase to the nation's wealthiest is something the public would find "unfair".
Rich people need to stop hanging out with other rich people.
> 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.
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'.
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.
I recently read 'the second estate' and reading about the number of loopholes the ultra wealthy exploit to pay almost no taxes and establish dynastic wealth does boil the blood.
Off the top of my head:
* 'Income' generated from loans using shares pledged as collateral should be treated the same as if you sold those shares.
* Someone receiving an inheritance over x million dollars (carve out 95% of family farms and small businesses if you want), should pay taxes on it as if it were any other windfall
* Donor advised funds should have a 5% distribution / yr requirement, same as private foundations
* capital gains should probably be treated as regular income. I have no idea why 50k in gains on INTC is somehow privileged over the salary paid to a roofer working in the hot sun.
According to Google, this claim is sourced to a person rather famous for baseless claims, from the founding of companies he owns, to the capabilities of his products, to cash prizes for registering to vote, to when he will send humans to mars.
Continuing to accept this person as a credible source of information isnt a reasonable thing to do.
Prof G Markets podcast just had an episode on this with Ray Madoff. They talk about the claim that "the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax". But Ray points out that is misleading because the 1% is basically lawyers, physicians, accountants etc that make like $500,000/yr. These people still pay income tax and that's the group paying 40% of income tax. What that claim misses is the 0.1% that pay 0 income tax because they have no income. The claim makes people believe that the billionaires are the ones paying that huge sum but we fail to realize that the 1% is our neighbours, not just the billionaires flying private jets across the world.
$0 just feels like a concept -- I can imagine a really high quality structuring exercise that gets tax low by making sure leverage on capital is what's used for spending, but I'd be really surprised to see a 0.1%-er (or 0.001%-er) post $0 income tax. For one, it's disadvantageous for certain kinds of bank interactions. But also, capital calls come in, investments that are made often require a step-up in basis, leverage is taken out on assets that require a margin call or a sale, there are alternative tax regimes, the corporations that are owned by these parties have their own tax burdens..
To say the wealthy can afford to radically optimize taxes and that our system taxes capital much more lightly than labor seems accurate to me, but I just haven't seen offers for "pay zero tax for all your life" from high grade professionals.
If US citizens want that, they generally give up their citizenship, pay their exit tax, and live in a low tax jurisdiction. I do know people like this, and they are very unlike the 0.1% types you're referring to here, and they've given up the benefits of being a US citizen in exchange for their preferred lifestyle. (And paid a mark to market exit tax on all assets on their way out of the country)
> Consider Bezos’ 2007, one of the years he paid zero in federal income taxes. Amazon’s stock more than doubled. Bezos’ fortune leapt $3.8 billion, according to Forbes, whose wealth estimates are widely cited. How did a person enjoying that sort of wealth explosion end up paying no income tax?
Or the President (now permanently immune from audit, incidentally):
Yeah and he lost money for a decade or more. Blame the system that you can loss harvest. Or call it fair that we don’t penalise business for having bad years.
I have some quibbles about the ProPublica definitions -- for instance market liquidity matters when calculating public company stock wealth -- and even if you're going to borrow against it, there are additional costs and pledges that must be made that significantly reduce the available capital.
The propublica number was like 4.5% or so if I recall, and does not count the taxes paid by the companies these people owned, nor does it imagine the financial benefits to say California teachers or firemen who co-own the companies through pension funds, nor does it reduce for effective wealth, nor does it reduce for unutilized wealth, e.g. if the stock price goes up and you don't sell or borrow against it, have you received benefit that makes sense to tax?
But if you net all those out and told me the effective rate was 12-15% on utilized capital, I wouldn't be surprised. I would be really surprised if it was $0 though.
The funds don't get taxed on unrealized gains. Nor do the pensioners. They do get taxed on spendable income they get out of the fund's investments, just like the other owners of the company.
> [Should we look at the benefits to society of corporations paying taxes?]
if you havent noticed yet, you are talking with someone who owns a private equity fund and, apparently, has "lost more than $1bn twice".
in other words, you are talking to someone in the stupid-wealthy class. you are not going to convince them of anything -- especially not that billionaires should pay more.
its like trying to convince Jon Moore (Phillip Morris USA CEO) that cigarettes should be banned.
As a percentage of their income? Because that's the only number I care about. You don't get to hoard wealth off the backs of tens of thousands of workers and then act like paying a smaller percentage is some good deed being done. The more one benefits from society (and billionaires depend most on the financial security and infrastructure setup by society), the more one needs to pay back into the system they gained their wealth from.
This seems like such a poor understanding of reality. If you want to rank order people who contribute net taxes, you would put billionaires at the top, as they not only pay taxes themselves, but their businesses pay taxes, and their employees pay taxes, and their customers potentially pay taxes (VAT) as well.
The bottom of the list would be anyone who works for the state, as they are a massive net tax negative, followed by benefits recipients and pensioners, followed by low income workers, followed finally by the middle classes.
Are you sure you want that to be your guiding principle?
This is misleading and not the point of the wealth tax.
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.
I think your blog post is confused. People on the left are pro-taxation because they (a) think billionaires do not have superpowers, and are benefiting from some combination of systemic injustices and plain old fraud gussied up for the modern era, and (b) think superheroes actually shouldn't be allowed to have 1,000,000 times the influence over the structure of the world and its economy compared to a mundane human, even if they existed.
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.
That is not illuminating at all. Like, the author just imagines the premise and finds three ways to repeat it. There is no exploration into why people think inequality is unfair; the underlying assumption is that it is perfectly natural and trying to address it is hypocritical and harmful.
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.
I can't speak for others, but this doesn't match my thinking at all.
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.
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.
It's the degree of power they hold, not a binary. A politican in Switzerland has much less power than a politician in China.
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 know, that's why I want to tax them, to remove their power.
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.
this is some of the most insipid dreck i've read in a long time. the only thing illuminated here is the author's complete lack of understanding regarding ability and worth and total inability to think beyond a system imposed upon him by others. i think the kids would say he's "billionaire glazing".
The vibe I get is that he's saying "you poors are just jealous of the billionaires who are smarter and richer than you, so you want to take it away from them"
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.
> People usually become billionaires via having “super-powers,” i.e., very unusual abilities, at least within some context.
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.
> People usually become billionaires via having “super-powers,” i.e., very unusual abilities, at least within some context.
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.
I'm not an expert in this, but I thought one of the biggest arguments for why a wealth tax is needed the whole "buy, borrow, die" thing where the ultra rich can use their assets as collateral to take out a never ending series of ultra low interest loans until they die and then have most of the tax burden of selling assets to pay off those loans wiped out because the tax code is much more favorable to selling assets to pay off the debt of someone's estate.
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.
> To convert between wealth and income tax rates, you have to divide by the rate of return on capital. The conversion rate of 20 comes from assuming that the risk-free rate of return is 5%.
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.
On top of that it seems to imply that a 20% effective tax rate is outrageous even though that's totally normal for most. Maybe it's not what you're used to as really wealthy person who avoids realized income and has a 0 or 5 or 10 percent effective rate. But it's totally normal for most middle and median income folks who actually pay income taxes.
I can't tell what's worse: intentionally obscuring the fact that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax or unintentionally forgetting that the vast majority of people would pay ~no wealth tax.
I'm retired. I hope to get a 3% per year income from my savings every year after inflation and taxes. If my state implemented a 1% wealth tax on savings each year, I would go bankrupt in 20 years. I am hoping that I will live 20 years.
I'm sure any wealth tax would only apply to wealth above a certain amount. For instance, inheritance tax only applies to $15mil and above. Likewise, when you sell a house the first $500K (I believe) in capital gains from the sale is tax free.
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.
But why wage earners should support you by paying more taxes? Reduce your spending by 33% to keep up.
I can't tell is this is sarcasm or a serious point.
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.
Corrected version:
A wealth tax of 1% is equivalent to an income tax of 20% on capital gains.
> 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.
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?
> 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?
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.
Oh good! I was worried that trickle down economics was self-serving nonsense pushed by think tank economists on behalf of their benefactors. Since it is economic fact rather than self-serving fiction, when I review its track record I will find that it caused an upward inflection in real wages, right? Right?
https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
Oops!
Total labor compensation has in fact grown. Unfortunately, much of the non-wage compensation involves services like healthcare that has become a lot more expensive over time due to burdensome overregulation and an overall lack of price transparency.
And 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.
The current system without wealth taxes already largely divorces labor from equity stake. Unless you're one of the relatively few tech or office workers who get equity compensation or have a large savings rate, you currently don't have much of a stake in any means of production.
I'm not disputing the claim that few people are able to save and invest into 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?
Why do I get the feeling that you would never field the structurally identical complaint against disproportionately taxing labor and consumption, even though that's a much more prominent feature of our current tax policy?
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.
How does it disincentivize "stakeholdership"? Are people expected to say, please don't make me rich, because I'd have to pay 1% of it?
Well for a start it pressurises asset holders to sell their assets.
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
> 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.
That can be quite a lot of people on HN, and also including FIRE people, so I can see why it's unpopular.
I think it’s a good point that these taxes don’t apply to most people. Another reason they don’t apply is that most people save for retirement using retirement accounts.
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.
Only in theory. In practice it’s not equivalent at all because once you reach a certain (very high) level of wealth, there’s the “buy, borrow, die” strategy that avoids realizing most of your capital gains. I’ve also heard of proposals to tax asset-backed loans above a certain threshold, which is aimed at the “borrow” part of the strategy. But the concern there is that the super wealthy may quickly find a different strategy for tax avoidance, so a blanket wealth tax should be harder to circumvent. But as with anything to do with the tax code, those with the best tax accountants and lawyers seldom end up losing.
There is no evidence[0] that the wealthy use the "buy, borrow, die" strategy in any significant way. The underlying financial math doesn't make sense if the goal is to maximize wealth so it isn't surprising that wealthy people don't actually do it.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00472...
I feel the same way. I hear a lot of complains about wealth tax but it always seems like the problems mainly pertain to billionaires. I don't see why we should optimize for that small minority.
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.
If you mean that a person with 0 savings pays 0 wealth tax, then sure. Most people when they earn income save some of it. Therefore it is wealth taxed.
Almost all wealth tax proposal I’ve seen start at the level of 8-9 figures of wealth. Why are we now talking about it as if it’s going to apply to your average person’s savings account? If we’re just going to accept these billionaire-invented narratives around the wealth tax, then there’s really no point in discussing the actual pros and cons of these proposals.
It seems fairly simple to have a standard deduction so that only folks with wealth over a certain amount get taxed.
I think the assumption that we're looking for an equivalence here is fundamentally flawed and with it the entire post.
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
The big flaw in his argument is that a mere 1% which is actually 20% of annual return is still less than the average income tax rate on workers, levied on people who have a lot more money and in some cases don't do anything resembling work. It's trivially true that 1% wealth taxes represent something in the region of a fifth of the average annual return on wealth, it's rather less convincing when it's suggested that this is harsh compared with income tax when people who pay more than half their much lower income in overall taxes whilst working 60 hour weeks and actually worrying about paying bills.
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...
> There are arguments about wealth taxes inducing capital flight and investment disincentives
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.
> you do need something more extreme
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.
How is rent-seeking and monopolizing "doing great things for the country's economy"?
This is simultaneously incredibly condescending and hopelessly naive. Politicians understand perfectly well that a 1% wealth tax is not a small tax on wealthy individuals. That's the whole point. They are engaging in basic political rhetoric when they say things like "a mere 1% tax".
> In fact the conversion rate between them is about 20. A wealth tax of 1% is equivalent to an income tax of 20%.
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.
> Wealth accumulates with no input once established.
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)
Step-up basis is important for anyone who inherits property from their parents. That can be substantial in places like California where real estate has gone up a lot.
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.
The step up basis makes sense in a world where you still have to pay substantial inheritance taxes. But with minimal to no inheritance taxes, the step up is a giveaway.
There is little evidence that wealthy people actually borrow for income in any significant way. For example, this paper[0] finds that borrowing only accounts for 1-2% of economic income among the top 1%.
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...
>...Additionally, wealthy people can use securities as collateral for near zero interest lifetime loans which also bypass having to pay income tax.
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.
Ironically, a wealth tax of 1% is equivalent to 20% of the risk free earnings on that wealth.
There is a bit more to the story than a 1% wealth being "equivalent" to a 20% income tax. The primary difference is that unrealized gains are taxed by a wealth tax. We need a mechanism for assets to be sold by the richest in society. If those with assets keep accruing more assets the median person will suffer. When we're talking about real assets (housing, retail shops, warehouses, land) we don't need to be concerned about capital flight. The assets are still there on the ground. Reducing the cost of those assets is exactly what we need to help a local economy.
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.
When more assets are sold than are bought, that leads to the destruction of assets on a broad scale. It's the economic equivalent of eating one's seed corn. This would not be good for the median person. You can and should tax land (meaning the land value component of real estate in general) and natural resources more generally, but that's an entirely different game: it has next to nothing to do with wealth taxes as generally understood.
> When more assets are sold than are bought
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?
If you are wealthy enough, you can live off of untaxed loans from your “unrealized” gains, and never pay taxes on that money at any rate. Meanwhile, I am paying an effective tax rate of around 35%.
The principle is simple: if you are spending the money, your gains are realized, and you should pay taxes.
Loans against unrealized gains should just be taxed directly as income. Not indirectly creating more loopholes. Same way stock buybacks should be taxed at the same rate as short term capital gains.
Stop thinking about taxes as a way to fund the government.
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.
I don’t follow the debate and situation in the US that closely but isn’t (part of) the point of wealth tax to offset the fact that rich people are routinely avoiding paying income tax and taxes in general? Thus even if we assume the simplistic conversion here, it’s not that they’re moved from 40->60 bracket but more like <10 -> <30 ?
Yes. And that wealthy individuals are avoiding taxes via things like buy -> borrow -> die, in which high stock valuations that increase but are not sold are not ever taxed, and roll over the taxation potential upon death to their current value. Thus by borrowing against them until death, the inheritor will inherit with a tax basis at the current value upon receipt and thus all taxes are avoided. In which case the tax would go from 0% to 20% (functionally a small amount may be sold to pay interest, so really assume 1% or 2% taxes default). The horror!
The idea that rich people don't pay taxes is a myth. The top 5% richest people in America account for 60% of all of the federal income tax. The bottom 50% on the other hand only account for a total of 3%.
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.
Can you share a source? Of course the top 5% of _earners_ would pay more, but that's not necessarily the same crew as the top 5% in net worth. And 5% is a large share of the population. I'd be more interested in the top 1% of 1% in terms of wealth.
The wealth tax argument actually is because our current 2 party political system is set up to where politicians effectively "pay" their corporate constituency with their discretionary spending, which has increased the national debt substantially.
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.
No it's just harder to accurately tax each and every form of wealth so we proxy it by taxing income.
So, if we go with 2% wealth tax(instead of 1%) we can cut income tax offset -20%? Go do it right now.
> 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, even though that's mathematically the same thing. [2]
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.
There's a related calculation you can do -- what percent of your net worth is your employability? Take your salary, divide by 0.05 (or multiply by 20) -- if you had that much additional wealth earning 5%, you could replace your job's income.
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.
It's not excessive to charge a 1% wealth tax when the people paying it don't pay any income tax thanks to their financial engineering.
The argument is plausible - that you can treat wealth taxes as equivalent to income taxes if you treat wealth taxes as a tax on the ostensible income generation of the wealth.
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.
It's not excessive to charge a 1% wealth tax when the people paying it don't pay any income tax thanks to their financial engineering.
Here is a cool website showing Wealth, shown to scale.
https://wealth.ronnycoste.com
There's a secondary side effect of wealth taxes: they redirect investments (I'm Argentinian and we have wealth taxes).
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.
The bigger difference between an income tax and a wealth tax isn't the numbers. A wealth tax, for better or worse requires some realization of paper gains that very wealthy folks normally go to great lengths to avoid because their wealth is largely based on a broadly shared polite fiction. So imposing some realization of that wealth requires accountability that doesn't always pan out.
A much more interesting formula would be how to convert between income and income tax - you'd think it worked according to the superficial bracket system, but in fact, it works along the lines of going to 0 at the top.
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).
I think the limit it can reach without carried forward losses is 20% because that's the top long-term capital gains tax rate. The other thing I can think of is if you sell a QSBS business, then your capital gains are taxed at 0, and you wouldn't pay income tax at all on that money either. So it's in theory possible that someone could make millions tax free from selling a business, but that's a rare case and one the tax code explicitly allows for.
Not everybody uses money to make more money, Paul. Most people work, get paid, and spend the money on their needs. In other words, you are in a position to care about the question, it's OK if you are taxed a bit more.
Wow, I like to actually see the numbers laid out like this. Most of the ultra-wealthy pay almost nothing on their income taxes from investments because they have found ways to avoid capital gains, and even if they were paying long term capital gains rates of 15%, pg’s assertion that the wealth tax adds another 20% doesn’t seem unreasonable at all. If anything, it makes me think 1% is not nearly enough of a wealth tax!
I think 1% wealth tax should be a replacement for income tax. That way only the wealthy will pay taxes.
I think that is the glaring hole here - via an insane number of instruments from the various investments, they can reduce their tax liability (fed and state) to be very close to 0%. I believe a main idea of the wealth tax is to get around the insanely complicated tax code w/ all its loopholes.
How do you propose we measure a person's wealth, when wealth is easily hidden? When it needs to be done now, it is usually a years long audit.
A lot of countries require you to declare your total wealth on your tax forms. Then once someone gets audited, that gets checked. Obviously it’s possible to hide it, but that in itself is a crime, and not everyone is willing to risk going to jail over paying taxes.
> A lot of countries require you to declare your total wealth on your tax forms.
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 first step we need to take is to invest in the IRS. Every dollar invested in the IRS returns between $5-9. Couple that with fines that offset the cost of auditing, and "hidden wealth" becomes a liability too expensive for people to bother with.
This argument strikes me as massively disingenuous. The central problem of the US tax system is caused by a combination of:
- 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.
It's clear from the way paulgraham talks about the subject that they not only don't know the answer, but don't even realize there's such a question.
You can tell from the way they talk about the subject that they don't understand what they're talking about.
The post goes out of it's way to mischaracterize the strategy (and purpose) of wealth taxes being proposed.
> Each 1% of wealth tax is equivalent to 20% of income tax.
Mathematically sound.
> Politicians understand that an additional 20% income tax would be a lot. And indeed a US state that added 20% to its top income tax rate would have extraordinarily high taxes.
That's the point.
> 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.
Not "all of the residents". Specifically the ultra wealthy that have a billion dollars. 20% at that point, is 20% of lots. You still have lots left over.
Mathematical fairness isn't the point, which is one reason there isn't a flat tax rate.
> > Each 1% of wealth tax is equivalent to 20% of income tax.
> Mathematically sound.
Don't most wealth taxes that have been proposed have a certain level of wealth that you pay no taxes on? If so, doesn't that make this at least partially incorrect?
Maybe I'm missing something, but if I have $100 and have to pay a 1% wealth tax on it then sure that's roughly 20%. If I have $100, but I only have to pay a 1% wealth tax on everything over $90 that's more like a 2% income tax.
I live in Switzerland. All residents are assessed a wealth tax. It would not be just the top x%. Wealth taxes are a bad idea tried in Europe and then later repealed.
Famously, Switzerland is a socialist failed state where no one wants to live, of course.
Please make higher quality posts -- what in specific do you think pg has missed or does not understand?
If he can phone it in why cant I? His entire framing.
Income (or revenue), what is left over freom the paycheque (profits) and net worth (market cap) - applying a simple ratio to companies of revenue to market cap doesnt work, why would applying a simple ratio of income to net worth for people who live hand to mouth and billionaires work any better.
I think you may have missed the background: US tax rhetoric -- he's doing what I think is pretty fair math with a fair take -- the math is supposed to break down what percent income tax you need to get the same dollars in tax revenue as a 1% wealth tax (on the wealthy). I think you could quibble with his risk free rate of return number, but most conservative planners would recommend a 4 - 5 % budget for risk free rate of return.
It's not about companies - it's about showing an equivalency between a Piketty-style tax of wealth setup and what we're used to thinking about in the US, an income-style tax setup on individuals.
This blog post is incredibly tasteless. Really Paul should take it down and get the butler to wipe the egg off his face
I appreciate PG's writing as always.
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.
There is a footnote discussing this point; he uses 5% as the risk-free rate.
Isn't PG's conflation of Denmark's high income tax with a proposed wealth tax a clear flaw in his math and argument re: "the highest taxes in the world"? Why wouldn't you instead compare to other countries that also have both income and wealth taxes?
As a layman, bringing up a purely income based argument with Denmark, seemed to be an odd juxtaposition.
There are numbers in this post, but only in the technical sense.
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.
Just going to put this here to open up discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Which is a tax on only one kind of wealth. Back when that was the kind that mattered most, that made sense. Today? Not so much.
it's more than that, because it's the one kind of wealth that has an (almost) completely inelastic supply
This treats all income like Labor income and completely ignores Investment income and long-term capital gains and losses.
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.
The thing that all these asshole billionaires don't want anyone to think about is that not taxing wealth means that a person who primarily accumulates non-income capital only ever pays taxes on what they spend while the rest of us pay taxes on approximately everything we get regardless of whether we spend it.
Are there serious proposals to just add a wealth tax on top of the existing income tax that would apply to the sort of people who actually pay much in income tax vs capital gains? It's an honest question; I haven't seen proposals of that sort, so I'm skeptical that the arguments are meaningful here. For an individual like Jeff Bezos, he's paying virtually no tax under the normal income tax rates referenced in the article, but rather capital gains tax, which tops out at 20%, not 37%.
None that I've seen, though I'm sure somebody somewhere has introduced something.
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.
The conversion would be more accurate if it compared wealth and capital gains taxes, no?
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.
What makes them unenforceable?
True enough, but it doesn't address the motivation or the issues presented by California's proposed wealth tax.
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.
Wealthy people are taking food out of my mouth by driving up asset prices, and deploying capital in ways that will never benefit me, either in employment or in quality of life. The premise of reducing taxes on wealthy people was that everyone would broadly benefit. This has not happened. The contract is broken. I want my money back.
> It's a big democracy red flag when a majority wants to take a lot from a tiny minority
not to forget that the inverse is also bad; generally people shouldn't take from each other
> It's a big democracy red flag when a majority wants to take a lot from a tiny minority
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
> 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)
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.
So make income tax a deduction on a wealth tax, and avoid penalizing people who do indeed pay top marginal rate income tax on a large salary/bonus.
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%”
I think the post is correct in a one-period sense, though I’m not sure the equivalence survives once you model long-term compounding, additional capital gains taxation and liquidity constraints.
The wealth tax that we should have is a federal property tax, in the form of a land-value tax. A property tax is more enforceable and produces much better incentives than an income tax or capital gains tax or death tax or wealth taxes in other forms.
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.
I think a lot of ink has been spilled on the problems with the proposed California Wealth tax, the main points being:
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?
Anymore I think the question shouldn't be about some kind of economic fairness (the time value of money thing being discussed) but the idea that wealth accumulation is a disease that afflicts society. I don't think anyone should have the level of control or influence on others that having a billion dollars currently allows. If a millionaire gives $100 to a political candidate it probably doesn't require too much thought. It's impressive to note that a 10-billionaire can give $1M just as easily, and so we have a class of folks who can throw around influence, who can order a team of lawyers to do things, can employ their legion of sycophantic followers to harass people, or can threaten the employment of many people not-of-their-class because they can make decisions that threaten someone's employer's bottom line. And note that above I compared a millionaire to the 10-billionaire, but there are plenty of folks, especially around the planet, who economically live several orders of magnitude below the millionaire.
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?
I know this is tangential to your main point, but in the US, you can only give a max of $3,500 to a candidate per election cycle, for each the primaries and general election.
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.
That’s the law, yes, but in practice it’s murkier: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2023/08/super-pacs-raise-mi...
> In fact, not a single coordination investigation has ever resulted in a PAC being fined.
As one example see million dollar donations to inaugurations.
How do you think society works without wealth accumulation? There would be no incentive to innovate to push forward. You wouldn’t have your iPhone, computer, or car. Want to see the result of societies that forbid wealth creation? Go to Cuba.
It's an interesting question. If we lived in a universe in which we weren't in fear of losing access to basic necessities of food, shelter, and healthcare, but had to work to have anything beyond those, what would happen? I don't truly know and I don't believe we have done the experiment anywhere. But I do know that the system we have not only produces innovative products but also corruption, oligopolies, and steamrolls over labor and the environment if not regulated.
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.
You obviously can’t convert between the two directly and suggesting that is disingenuous.
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.
Yet... an entire industry (financial advisors) will happily charge you a 1% "wealth tax" to manage your money. And you don't see lengthy articles from luminary venture capitalists about that.
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 entry level rate for >$10M AUM is ~0.5%
That's a 10% tax! <gasp>
Paul the billionaire ignoring that billionaires often don't pay any income tax at all. Come on man, we're not stupid just because we don't own superyachts.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...
This is wrong. You can’t convert between the two because it’s possible to have a lot of wealth with very little (even zero) income. Billionaires can completely avoid income taxes by paying themselves a very low salary and instead borrowing money against their assets (usually stock), which is not taxed as income.
Source: The Second Estate by Ray Madoff (2025)
Wealth tax is highly impractical. Very high and inescapable death taxes is what we need. Like 80% after an initial exemption amount. https://www.yesigiveafig.com/p/the-summer-slide-part-3-the-t... https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mX5U5DNUfBc
There are all kinds of irrevocable trusts that exist to remove assets from your taxable estate so that they can be passed to heirs without paying estate tax. Raising the estate tax (which is already 40%) would just make planning to use these techniques more attractive.
The existence of perpetual trusts is solvable in a world that has decided to fix the insanity caused by intergenerational wealth transfer instead of propping it up. "This thing we could also eliminate stops us from eliminating this other thing" is a silly platform. Just eliminate them both.
Lots of confusion and misunderstanding in these comments. Not surprising, given the highly charged nature of the subject. I highly recommend Ray Madoff's book The Second Estate [1] to learn more about the topic.
[1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo256019...
Mind sharing what commenters are getting wrong?
I believe some of Ray Madoff's points are that the tax code and most tax intuitions kinda differ.
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.
Here is a better algorithm to edify the masses: if someone is such a massive billionaire as to have the boldness to teach the public basic 5th-grade math, their wealth tax rate should be set at 10%. From that point on, the rate goes in proportion to their level of condescension.
Why choose the median state tax? The proposed wealth tax is in California, where the top tax rate is 13%. Also relevant would be Medicare (1.45% or 2.35% depending on your employment income) and presumably for billionaires, the Net Investment Income Tax, another 3.8%.
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.
Is this Graham accidentally revealing his contempt for working people?
He's a billionaire.
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.
Here's a crucial mechanism that Paul Graham did not mention:
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.
> 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, even though that's mathematically the same thing. [2]
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.
His math is correct, but the conclusion is wrong.
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.
> Wealth tax is tax from sitting on your ass doing nothing.
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.
Because billionaires accumulate wealth through assets and unrealized gains, many of them skip taking a traditional income and pay. If the numbers in the links below are to be believed, according to paulgraham's calculations, this might bump them into a ~fair range (when comparing to average/median earners).
https://www.nber.org/papers/w34170 https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-calculated-the-tru...
The real problem is our politicians aren't representing our people. All these other issues of wasteful spending and money printing and inflation and whatnot are downstream of that main crux of problem. People don't hate wealthy perse but when laypeople aren't provided proper means of living, they will try anything as a solution, even throwing a wrench in the system. That's how we got Trump.
Paul doesn't mention that these aren't exclusive. The California "Billionaires Tax" (which will likely soon become a "Millionaires Tax" after all the Billionaires exit the state), is levied on top of the regular state income tax.
> None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
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.
This is a transparently misleading framing.
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.
Thank you. This is exactly the problem- pg is twisting the conversation by saying "look how painful taxes are for you, pleb!" When in reality, the taxation levels on the ultra-wealthy (whom this is targeted toward) are so much smaller not only on a %'age level, but on an impact level as well.
> That's why I think few politicians currently understand how to convert between wealth and income taxes. You can tell from the way they talk about the subject that they don't understand the momentousness of what they're proposing. But I'm optimistic that we can teach them. The answer's not hard to understand, once you realize the question exists.
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.
>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, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
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.
> 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, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
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…
I used to be against wealth taxes but as inequality gets out of hand I've more and more felt like they are the right move.
Hell, I'll be the first in line to pay the damn tax so long as billionaires are right in line with me too.
> 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%
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.
Completely ignores the true distinction between wealth and income taxes.
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.
I think Paul thinks people care about the distinction, or think that a 20% marginal increase to the nation's wealthiest is something the public would find "unfair".
Rich people need to stop hanging out with other rich people.
> 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.
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'.
Yeah this ignores at least three things:
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.
Imagine, poor person, if you had to pay an additional 20% in income tax! That would not be fair!
Fuck off paul. Billionaires aren’t paying anything in income tax when they should be paying 60 or even 90.
So, yes, let’s hit them with a 5% wealth tax.
I recently read 'the second estate' and reading about the number of loopholes the ultra wealthy exploit to pay almost no taxes and establish dynastic wealth does boil the blood.
Off the top of my head:
* 'Income' generated from loans using shares pledged as collateral should be treated the same as if you sold those shares.
* Someone receiving an inheritance over x million dollars (carve out 95% of family farms and small businesses if you want), should pay taxes on it as if it were any other windfall
* Donor advised funds should have a 5% distribution / yr requirement, same as private foundations
* capital gains should probably be treated as regular income. I have no idea why 50k in gains on INTC is somehow privileged over the salary paid to a roofer working in the hot sun.
This just isn't true, unless you're the president.
Who is the single largest taxpayer in US history? I'll wait while you google it.
According to Google, this claim is sourced to a person rather famous for baseless claims, from the founding of companies he owns, to the capabilities of his products, to cash prizes for registering to vote, to when he will send humans to mars.
Continuing to accept this person as a credible source of information isnt a reasonable thing to do.
Prof G Markets podcast just had an episode on this with Ray Madoff. They talk about the claim that "the top 1% of Americans pay 40% of the income tax". But Ray points out that is misleading because the 1% is basically lawyers, physicians, accountants etc that make like $500,000/yr. These people still pay income tax and that's the group paying 40% of income tax. What that claim misses is the 0.1% that pay 0 income tax because they have no income. The claim makes people believe that the billionaires are the ones paying that huge sum but we fail to realize that the 1% is our neighbours, not just the billionaires flying private jets across the world.
$0 just feels like a concept -- I can imagine a really high quality structuring exercise that gets tax low by making sure leverage on capital is what's used for spending, but I'd be really surprised to see a 0.1%-er (or 0.001%-er) post $0 income tax. For one, it's disadvantageous for certain kinds of bank interactions. But also, capital calls come in, investments that are made often require a step-up in basis, leverage is taken out on assets that require a margin call or a sale, there are alternative tax regimes, the corporations that are owned by these parties have their own tax burdens..
To say the wealthy can afford to radically optimize taxes and that our system taxes capital much more lightly than labor seems accurate to me, but I just haven't seen offers for "pay zero tax for all your life" from high grade professionals.
If US citizens want that, they generally give up their citizenship, pay their exit tax, and live in a low tax jurisdiction. I do know people like this, and they are very unlike the 0.1% types you're referring to here, and they've given up the benefits of being a US citizen in exchange for their preferred lifestyle. (And paid a mark to market exit tax on all assets on their way out of the country)
> I'd be really surprised to see a 0.1%-er (or 0.001%-er) post $0 income tax.
Bezos did, in 2007.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...
> Consider Bezos’ 2007, one of the years he paid zero in federal income taxes. Amazon’s stock more than doubled. Bezos’ fortune leapt $3.8 billion, according to Forbes, whose wealth estimates are widely cited. How did a person enjoying that sort of wealth explosion end up paying no income tax?
Or the President (now permanently immune from audit, incidentally):
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/09/27/us/donald-tru...
> He had paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years — largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.
Yeah and he lost money for a decade or more. Blame the system that you can loss harvest. Or call it fair that we don’t penalise business for having bad years.
This. The paragraph might have backed up and said "Bezos, after sustaining over 95% capital losses in the prior decade,.."
> Yeah and he lost money for a decade or more.
On paper, I'm sure. Let's not pretend that's reality.
There's not an easy source for that information, especially not inflation adjusted. Who do you think the answer is?
Musk paid $11B in a year his wealth went up $86B on his way to likely being the first trillionaire. Are we supposed to cry about it?
The median net worth in the US is ~$200k. A lot of middle-class folks have likely paid more taxes in their lifetime than their entire net worth.
Nope. Just not post things like "billionaires pay no taxes."
They don't pay zero tax, for sure.
But they certainly get clever about techniques to keep it as low as possible, for shockingly low effective tax rates.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov... has a whole bunch of examples.
I have some quibbles about the ProPublica definitions -- for instance market liquidity matters when calculating public company stock wealth -- and even if you're going to borrow against it, there are additional costs and pledges that must be made that significantly reduce the available capital.
The propublica number was like 4.5% or so if I recall, and does not count the taxes paid by the companies these people owned, nor does it imagine the financial benefits to say California teachers or firemen who co-own the companies through pension funds, nor does it reduce for effective wealth, nor does it reduce for unutilized wealth, e.g. if the stock price goes up and you don't sell or borrow against it, have you received benefit that makes sense to tax?
But if you net all those out and told me the effective rate was 12-15% on utilized capital, I wouldn't be surprised. I would be really surprised if it was $0 though.
> does not count the taxes paid by the companies these people owned
Why should they? Should I get to count the taxes paid by my local water treatment plant workers because I shit in the toilet?
> nor does it imagine the financial benefits to say California teachers or firemen who co-own the companies through pension funds
They get taxed on that!
> They get taxed on that!
The funds don't get taxed on unrealized gains. Nor do the pensioners. They do get taxed on spendable income they get out of the fund's investments, just like the other owners of the company.
> [Should we look at the benefits to society of corporations paying taxes?]
I think so.
if you havent noticed yet, you are talking with someone who owns a private equity fund and, apparently, has "lost more than $1bn twice".
in other words, you are talking to someone in the stupid-wealthy class. you are not going to convince them of anything -- especially not that billionaires should pay more.
its like trying to convince Jon Moore (Phillip Morris USA CEO) that cigarettes should be banned.
The only reason he paid $11B that year was because he exercised Tesla options. Many other years his tax bill has ranged from zero to millions.
What did he pay in previous years? To borrow a phrase, I’ll wait while you google it.
As a percentage of their income? Because that's the only number I care about. You don't get to hoard wealth off the backs of tens of thousands of workers and then act like paying a smaller percentage is some good deed being done. The more one benefits from society (and billionaires depend most on the financial security and infrastructure setup by society), the more one needs to pay back into the system they gained their wealth from.
This seems like such a poor understanding of reality. If you want to rank order people who contribute net taxes, you would put billionaires at the top, as they not only pay taxes themselves, but their businesses pay taxes, and their employees pay taxes, and their customers potentially pay taxes (VAT) as well.
The bottom of the list would be anyone who works for the state, as they are a massive net tax negative, followed by benefits recipients and pensioners, followed by low income workers, followed finally by the middle classes.
Are you sure you want that to be your guiding principle?
In what reality does a business owner get to claim their customers’ taxes as their own contribution?
Do you think employees and "customers" of the government don't pay tax?
Get rid of the employees and the taxes no longer get paid.
Get rid of the billionaire and the taxes still get paid.
Why do we credit those taxes to the billionaire rather than the employees?
This is misleading and not the point of the wealth tax.
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.
If you want to understand why someone would even propose taking from the rich and complain about inequality, this post titled "Inequality Talk Is About Grabbing " is illuminating: https://www.overcomingbias.com/p/inequality-is-about-grabbin...
I think your blog post is confused. People on the left are pro-taxation because they (a) think billionaires do not have superpowers, and are benefiting from some combination of systemic injustices and plain old fraud gussied up for the modern era, and (b) think superheroes actually shouldn't be allowed to have 1,000,000 times the influence over the structure of the world and its economy compared to a mundane human, even if they existed.
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.
That is not illuminating at all. Like, the author just imagines the premise and finds three ways to repeat it. There is no exploration into why people think inequality is unfair; the underlying assumption is that it is perfectly natural and trying to address it is hypocritical and harmful.
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 want to understand why someone would even propose taking from the rich and complain about inequality,
Because they want to take back what was taken from them.
Why is that the case?
Wow, what a piece of text. Just, wow. Our poor billionaires and their tasty, tasty boots.
I can't speak for others, but this doesn't match my thinking at all.
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.
Easily solved, remove the power centers and then the billionaires will have no power to buy or influence with their money.
There's no such thing as "Power centers".
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.
Define "easily" for us, please.
Don't hand over power to politicians, bureaucrats and NGOs. It's not rocket science to need further explanation.
Politicians, by definition, have power. How do you easily remove or withhold it?
It's the degree of power they hold, not a binary. A politican in Switzerland has much less power than a politician in China.
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.
> When your power is to determine which day the recycling truck is dropping-by, hardly anyone wants to coerce that power.
I take it you've never encountered a homeowner's association.
I thought you said it was easy?
I know, that's why I want to tax them, to remove their power.
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.
"Don't want to be ruled by billionaires, peasants? Have you tried dismantling your government so they can't buy it? That will surely save you."
this is some of the most insipid dreck i've read in a long time. the only thing illuminated here is the author's complete lack of understanding regarding ability and worth and total inability to think beyond a system imposed upon him by others. i think the kids would say he's "billionaire glazing".
The vibe I get is that he's saying "you poors are just jealous of the billionaires who are smarter and richer than you, so you want to take it away from them"
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.
> People usually become billionaires via having “super-powers,” i.e., very unusual abilities, at least within some context.
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.
> People usually become billionaires via having “super-powers,” i.e., very unusual abilities, at least within some context.
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.
Right, as presented, these people are closer to Lex Luthor than Superman.
And I would still want to tax Superman.