Many progressive politicians agree: billionaires should not exist. Nobody should have that much money. Has the time come to tax not what they earn, but what they own? Over 45 members of Congress have proposed a policy to do just that. They call it a “wealth tax.” But will it actually work? And will it be confined to billionaires? Benjamin Jaros, an economist and research fellow at the Hoover Institution, explores these questions.
If Senator Bernie Sanders had his way, billionaires would not exist.
To Bernie and his supporters, nobody should have that much money.
In their view, it's not fair.
Progressive politicians like Senator Elizabeth Warren
and Representative Ro Khanna agreed.
Together, with over 45 members of Congress,
they have proposed a policy to fix things.
They call it a wealth tax.
It's the latest chapter in the ever-popular Tax the Rich playbook.
Will it actually work?
Or will it backfire on the very people it's supposed to help?
Let's take a closer look.
For starters, a wealth tax is fundamentally different
from any tax you pay today.
Think of it this way.
An income tax taxes what you earn.
A sales tax taxes what you spend.
A wealth tax taxes what you own.
Now, you might think, we already tax what people own.
It's called a property tax.
But a property tax only reaches tangible assets tied to land.
such as houses and office buildings.
A wealth tax goes further.
It applies to just about everything else.
Stocks, business ownership, artwork, you name it.
That's a wealth tax.
If it sounds like a progressive politician's fantasy, you're not wrong.
They've tried it in Europe a bunch of times,
and it's failed a bunch of times.
By 1990, 12 European nations had a wealth tax.
Since then, nine of them have dropped it.
Why?
Because it suffers from three fatal flaws.
Fatal flaw number one, it taxes paper wealth.
Most people's wealth isn't sitting in a vault full
of gold coins like the fortune of Scrooge
McDuck. It's either tied up in illiquid assets like farmland,
businesses, real estate, and
collectibles. Or it's in the assets that people buy
and hold because they think it will appreciate
in value, like your stock portfolio or retirement account.
Calculating non-cash assets every year
is an exercise in guesswork.
How much is a family-owned farm or an unproven tech company
worth on any given Tuesday?
With that in mind, does it sound fair to you that an entrepreneur
who builds a business worth $10 million on paper
but only takes home a $100,000 salary
owes a 2% wealth tax of $200,000?
Where is he going to get that money? Most likely,
he'd be forced to sell pieces of his business,
lay off workers, or shut down entirely to pay
government for wealth he hasn't actually realized.
Fatal flaw number two, wealth has wings. When you
tax sales, people complain. When you tax wealth, people leave.
Capital is mobile. If a country
or a state like, say, Illinois,
were to punish people for owning assets, the wealthy won't just
sit around and take it. They'll pack up and move.
Under France's wealth tax, wealthy taxpayers fled
the country, taking with them an estimated $228 billion in capital,
dragging down GDP
growth.
And when those wealthy taxpayers left,
they took their investment capital, their future
businesses, and their job creation with them.
France lost far more in capital flight
and slower economic growth than it ever collected
from the wealth tax itself,
which explains why they got rid of it in 2018.
It's also why the Democratic governor of high-tax New York,
Kathy Hochul, said in 2026,
The fact is,
I need people who are high net worth
to support the generous social programs
that we want to have in our state.
Fatal flaw number three, the billionaire-only myth.
Proponents love to reassure us by saying,
don't worry, this tax will only apply to the billionaires.
They have more money than they know what to do with.
They're not going to miss a few million.
Don't be fooled.
History has shown that targeted taxes never stay targeted.
When the federal income tax was introduced in 1913,
politicians promised it would only apply
to the ultra-wealthy top 1%,
and it would just be a few measly percentage points.
Today, the income tax reaches deep into the middle class
with top rates of up to 37%.
A wealth tax won't be any different.
When big government spending inevitably outpaces
the revenue collected from a few hundred billionaires,
politicians won't cut spending.
They'll just lower the wealth tax threshold.
Today's billionaire tax becomes tomorrow's tax
on your 401k, your family home, and your small business.
But let's say this time they really stick it just to the billionaires
and leave the rest of us alone.
It still won't do any good.
The billionaires will be okay.
They'll move themselves, their money,
and the jobs their businesses create somewhere else.
Consider what happened in California
when there was just the threat of a wealth tax.
Google founders Sergey Brin
and Larry Page moved their business entities
out of California and bought homes in other states.
So did Meta founder Mark Zuckerberg,
Uber founder Travis Kalanick, and many others.
So, who actually pays when wealth flees?
Everyone who stays.
Maybe billionaires aren't so bad after all.
I'm Benjamin Jaros, Economist
and Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution
at Stanford University for Prager University.
Thank you for watching this video.
To keep PragerU videos free,
please consider making a tax-deductible donation.