As an economist, I strongly oppose the wealth tax (as well as other forms of double taxation) because it’s foolish to impose additional layers of tax that penalize saving and investment.
Especially since there’s such a strong relationship between investment and worker compensation.
The politicians may tell us they’re going to “soak the rich,” but the rest of us wind up getting wet.
That being said, there are also administrative reasons why wealth taxation is a fool’s game. One of them, which I mentioned as part of a recent tax debate, is the immense headache of trying to measure wealth every single year.
Yes, that’s not difficult if someone has assets such as stock in General Motors or Amazon. Bureaucrats from the IRS can simply go to a financial website and check the value for any given day.
But the value of many assets is very subjective (patents, royalties, art, heirlooms, etc), and that will create a never-ending source of conflict between taxpayers and the IRS if that awful levy is ever imposed.
Let’s look at a recent dispute involving another form of destructive double taxation. The New York Times has an interesting story about a costly dispute involving the death tax to be imposed on Michael Jackson’s family.
Michael Jackson died in 2009… But there was another matter that has taken more than seven years to litigate: Jackson’s tax bill with the Internal Revenue Service, in which the government and the estate held vastly different views about what Jackson’s name and likeness were worth when he died.
The I.R.S. thought they were worth $161 million. …Judge Mark V. Holmes of United States Tax Court ruled that Jackson’s name and likeness were worth $4.2 million, rejecting many of the I.R.S.’s arguments. The decision will significantly lower the estate’s tax burden… In a statement, John Branca and John McClain, co-executors of the Jackson estate, called the decision “a huge, unambiguous victory for Michael Jackson’s children.”
I’m glad the kids won this battle.
Michael Jackson paid tax when he first earned his money. Those earnings shouldn’t be taxed again simply because he died.
But the point I want to focus on today is that a wealth tax would require these kinds of fights every single year.
Given all the lawyers and accountants this will require, that goes well beyond adding insult to injury. Lots of time and money will need to be spent in order to (hopefully) protect households from a confiscatory tax that should never exist.
P.S. The potential administrative nightmare of wealth taxation, along with Biden’s proposal to tax unrealized capital gains at death, help to explain why the White House is proposing to turbo-charge the IRS’s budget with an additional $80 billion.
[…] also a practical argument against wealth taxation, which is based on the daunting challenge of revaluing assets every […]
[…] P.S. There’s definitely not a libertarian argument for a wealth tax, and I also have explained why there is not a conservative argument for this invasive levy. […]
[…] P.S. There’s definitely not a libertarian argument for a wealth tax, and I also have explained why there is not a conservative argument for this invasive levy. […]
[…] bad consequences, with similarly big problems with complexity, but using a different […]
[…] bad consequences, with similarly big problems with complexity, but using a different […]
[…] bad consequences, with similarly big problems with complexity, but using a different […]
[…] We’ll start with the good news. The Washington Post appears to understand that a wealth tax would be a bad idea, both because it can lead to very high effective tax rates and because it would be a nightmare to administer. […]
[…] We’ll start with the good news. The Washington Post appears to understand that a wealth tax would be a bad idea, both because it can lead to very high effective tax rates and because it would be a nightmare to administer. […]
Dan
I thought of you when i saw this vid of people who have no idea about tax levels
Nath
[…] A Practical Reason to Oppose Wealth Taxation […]
If the IRS already considers name and likeness to have financial value, would Jackson have had to pay wealth taxes on his name and likeness while he was still alive?
The mind boggles.
The wealth tax should be for the poor. Elect to pay it and lower your income/payroll tax rates. Call it the inverse taxation of wealth and income.
Besides reducing overall prosperity, being difficult to administer, and not raising much revenue, there is also the issue of fairness.
Imagine Person A and Person B are economically identical in all ways but one. They both live in the same town, have the same occupation, and earn the same amount of money throughout their careers. The only way they differ is lifestyle and spending. Person A leads a modest lifestyle, saves a lot, and ends up amassing a small fortune. In contrast, Person B lives a lavish lifestyle and ends up with no wealth. Is it then fair to tax the wealth of Person A? I don’t think so.