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.
A wealth tax of 1% is equivalent to an income tax of 20% on capital gains.
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?
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.
This is more of a fair comparable to reason about when comparing taxing wealth and taxing wages.
In nerd-speak, taxing the Derivative of Wealth is comparable to taxing Income.
You could argue that a fair comparison of wages and wealth would first subtract the minimum cost of living, so that wage tax is effectively a tax on the growing wealth of wage-earners. This would arguably be a fairer tax comparison - in both cases it is the derivative of wealth that is being taxed.
If a large portion of the populace spends all their income on basic food, rent and petrol then they have no chance of wealth increase, and perhaps should fairly be charged 30% of their $0 growth in annual wealth.
You can work for years at a startup at a depressed wage, then have a windfall that makes up for it on average.
That windfall (in California) will be taxed at a marginal rate of 52%. The only people that ever pay nearly that much are middle class. Some sort of time averaging would help.
Anyway, the US tax code is complicated. Personally, I’d prefer a flat tax with universal basic income. This could replace income, capital gains and inheritance taxes in their entirety. (Along with a lot of social services bureaucracy).
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.
California contains a lot of houses!
That can be quite a lot of people on HN, and also including FIRE people, so I can see why it's unpopular.
For those who have little hope of the wealth tax applied to them (me for example), but as as someone who has investments and need them for retirement, I need to decide if this will affect bond prices or equity prices in a positive or negative way as their attractiveness will change in relative terms, or if publicly accessible funds will get devalued in favor of private investment opportunities and all public assets get devalued. Oh, wait, I am not wealthy, so I do not have the option of private equity, and cannot participate in what would be an attractive investment opportunity when investments shift towards more opaque assets.
For those that have zero assets, I do not think that a shift by the wealthy to private equity is a good thing, unless you want to work for a private equity company. A government job would be your best bet. And a shift to private equity would have a downward pressure on tax collections, so whatever projections for how much a wealth tax would generate, I am suspect.
A lot of people complain about private equity. This scourge was, to a small or large degree depending on your viewpoint, an unintended side effect of SOX compliance, meant to protect investors, and in the end narrowed down the amount of public companies, and created more opportunities/demand for PE. I think it is debatable how much protection investors actually received.
We live in a system, and making a fundamental change to one part of that system has effects on all parts. Raising the amount of taxes under the current system ? That is one thing. Introducing a whole new tax concept, difficult to predict. Especially if this is done by states, which could cause capital movements with their own unexpected consequences.
So complaining about having to contribute to the society that gave the conditions for your vast wealth is going to get you 0 sympathy
Not quite, because you're using the opposite extreme where someone has no assets. Meanwhile the median net worth in the US ~$200k, which would be $2000/year in tax for every 1% in wealth tax. That's certainly enough for ordinary people to notice.
On top of that, the conversion is even worse than that implies for ordinary people, because the primary reason the median is ~$200k isn't that the median person has $200k their whole lives, it's that they have ~$0 when they're 18 and ~$400k when they retire and the median person is about halfway to retirement age. If you transfer tax burden from income tax to wealth tax then that means they'll be paying more in wealth tax in the second half of their life, which means they need to be saving rather than spending the money not paid in income tax, including during the first half of their life. But that causes their net worth to go up on paper by more/sooner, because they're essentially holding extra money they'll only have to pay in tax later, which in turn causes them to pay more in tax for a tax on holding assets.
Moreover, then you can't say that Alice always benefits because she has no assets and Bob always pays more because he has $400,000 because what's actually happening is that Alice pays less when she's 20 and more when she's 60. That's going to be unpopular because the 20 year olds are generally expecting to be 60 someday but the 60 year olds never expect to be 20 again.
> Each 1% of wealth tax is equivalent to 20% of income tax.
Yes, this is the right part. Taxing wealth at 1% is equivalent to taxing income at 20-25% (depending on which return you count as baseline)
> 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
On the opposite, they understand it right, and PG is completely wrong here: it's not about adding income tax rate to someone that already pay income taxes, it's about making wealthy people, who don't currently pay this tax rate, pay the same rate as people living from their income.
> 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%.
Bezos, Musk, Zuck and the likes (or even PG himself, likely) don't pay 40% tax on their wealth growth, they currently pays 0%.
In fact, to make them pay as much tax as their employees, there should be a 2% wealth tax, not 1%. Hence, a “mere 1%” is in fact a very generous proposal by leftists politicians and economists, as it would still mean the wealthy only get half the rate of working people.
I guess the simplest approach is, if you're making money, it should be taxed fairly, regardless of how you're making it.
That's exactly it. I've been really shocked at the willful ignorance (or deceit) coming from the billionaire class on this. I mean, OBVIOUSLY the practical operation of the tax regime is unfair at the top end. If you put a billion dollars in assets somewhere, almost any asset (including e.g. stock in a company you can't sell because you need to own it), growth of that asset is (1) trivially liquid via loans[1] or deals and (2) COMPLETELY UNTAXABLE IN PRACTICE because there's never (ever!) going to be a point where it's traded or converted in such a way that it becomes a "capital gain".
[1] e.g. Bezos goes to Citi or whoever and writes up a contract for a $100M loan to be collateralized with ever-appreciating AMZN shares, likely at a deeply discounted rate (low risk, plus the "keep Jeff in the rolodex" benefit to the bank) then pays it back on schedule with another loan taken out on his now-even-larger stake in AMZN. Who pays the tax here? It's not "income"!
Offtopic but I thought your percent looked weird. Turns out, that's the "care of" symbol (℅, U+2105) and not percent (%, U+0025).
No one should pay taxes on "wealth growth" because it's not realized. They paid income taxes on the shares once they received them, and will pay capital gains taxes once they sell them.
>In fact, to make them pay as much tax as their employees, there should be a 2% wealth tax, not 1%. Hence, a “mere 1%” is in fact a very generous proposal by leftists politicians and economists, as it would still mean the wealthy only get half the rate of working people.
They paid the same tax as their employees once they received the stocks. They will pay the same capital gains taxes as their employees once they sell.
Indeed.
Andrew Mellon writing in 1924 "Taxation: The People’s Business.": "The fairness of taxing more lightly incomes from wages, salaries and professional services than the incomes from business or from investments is beyond question. In the first case, the income is uncertain and limited in duration; sickness or death destroys it, and old age diminishes it. In the other, the source of income continues; the income may be disposed of during a man’s life, and it descends to his heirs."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mellon
Via "Our Tax System Should Make You Furious" (interview with a Boston College Law School professor who specializes in tax law and estate planning):
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcas...
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.
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.
It may be more realistic to view this in terms of elite power struggle. There are some constituencies that have found their way into positions of some power -- in government and public service -- that are in conflict with other elites, who have found some power in private enterprise. These groups battle for control of things. One strategy in the battle is managing the other group's access to money.
It's not clear from any kind of first principles, that we are better off with government allocation of a large portion of the society's capital. That hasn't historically been a big winner. Private ordering seems to net out a higher quality of life overall, even with income inequality.
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.
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)
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...
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.
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.
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
not to forget that the inverse is also bad; generally people shouldn't take from each other
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.
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
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...
We have societal problems around food costs, housing costs, healthcare costs, &c; but people with extreme wealth are not bidding up sandwiches, studio apartments, &c, &c. If we "solve" their wealth by taking it from them and giving it to the government, what does that help? What good is the government going to do with that? Allocating money through the government has not been a particularly successful strategy for improving the overall standard of living.
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.
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.
How will they suffer? The people with assets, to realize a benefit from them, have to spend money. If they don't spend the money, then what's the problem?
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.
see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48239802
Moreover if the bug is that income isn't tax at death, why not just fix that bug? Otherwise it's like arguing: "wow there are people in poverty? Better have a communist revolution to fix that!"
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.
We are already there in US. Real estate is already controlled by companies, and rental costs are through the roof.
Paul tries to frame it as an increase of 20% in the tax rate, but in reality the increase is from 0% to 20%, and it's hard to see why that's unfair.
The reason I say it's currently 0% is of course that for the wealthy most of these 5% gains are unrealized (e.g. inflation in the value of their assets) and untaxed.
The worst part is that even when they need to realize their profits, they have schemes that allow them to avoid taxes (guess how much taxes Musk paid for his $20B realized profits from his Tesla shares he sold to buy Twitter).
The principle is simple: if you are spending the money, your gains are realized, and you should pay taxes.
In order to pay zero taxes you’d need to know you’re about to die. Until then your debt would be growing faster than your wealth.
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?
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.
Capital gains are on realized gains. Based on the difference between purchase price and selling price.
The thing is, wealthy people don't have interests bearing investments, because they don't need the cash right now. They either have unrealized gains (shares, real estate, etc), or interest bearing products wrapped in marked to market vehicules with reinvestment (ETFs, life insurance, mutual fund, etc).
Unrealized gains are not taxed as long as you don't sell them. If you need cash, you can borrow against them, so problem solved.
As for interest bearing investments, most companies nowadays use buybacks instead of dividends to avoid withholding taxes.
If I were an actual billionaire -- say, my net worth was $2B -- then my one-time tax under California’s proposal would be $100M, leaving me with a net worth of $1.9B. Under that 5% risk-free rate of return, I would recover that amount of money within one year even if my income were $0, which seems exceedingly unlikely.
One can argue about the specifics of various proposals -- the Tax Foundation, for example, thinks California’s proposal has “aggressive design choices and possible drafting errors” that could lead to somewhat bonkers results, although I haven’t seen any critiques of their analysis yet -- but a wealth tax cannot be converted to income tax in a reasonable manner any more than a VAT could be converted to property tax. They’re both taxes, but they’re simply not the same kind of tax. And while I don’t mean to cap on Paul here, there’s a distinct “woe, pity the poor billionaires who will surely be driven to bankruptcy” subtext I find to be risible nonsense.
All proposals focus on ultra-wealthy individuals. This "momentousness" wouldn't really touch the absolute vast majority of the taxpayers.
But, yeah, I bet the targeted people are getting nervous.
1. Wealthy more or less means able to live off the investments (passive income). Usually it means live off the interest of the interest (generally assessed as 8 million bucks nest egg)
2. It’s an obvious logical step but it is literally impossible for everyone to be independently wealthy. As in everyone cannot have a passive income.
3. So this debate just chnages when we ask “how do we make everyone wealthy” we can’t given the definition we have.
4. So we have to change the definition
5. How can we make everyone in society share fairly in the wealth that society has?
6. What if we made it much harder for wealth to Snowball into more wealth pulling it away from middle class
7. What if instead of a foolish wealth tax where we assess wealth, we stick to the “freely entered into transaction situation”
8. So Capital Gains taxes at same rates as income Also tax the “borrow till you die” idea - over a certain yearly amount, borrowing against your assets (ie Deutsche Bank lending you 100M against 1M shares of Blurb corporation should be treated as income just as if you sold the shares.)
I know that get hard but in the end we need money to circulate.
That’s how everyone shares
Being able to borrow against assets is a pretty essential part of the present-day economy. Almost everybody does it, from the very poorest taking out a car-title loan (however ill-advised) to middle-class people with home equity loans to medium sized businesses and farms who often have loans against their entire assets in order to buy more equipment or keep their operations going.
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).
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%”
$tax_paid = max($income_tax_liability + $capital_gain_tax_liability, $wealth_tax_liability)
But it's not "mathematically the same thing". Taking the 100 dollars allegory Paul raises, for that allegory to be based in reality, someone would need to have 20x their annual salary in wealth. The median salary in the US is 59K per annum. For the 100 dollars allegory to work out to a 20% income tax equivalence, people would need to have just over a million dollars sitting in their bank account. The average American net worth is more like 48K (being generous), which is under a year's salary, with a tonne of people also just living permanently in debt (negative wealth). Interestingly, would a wealth tax mean negative tax (free money) for those many in America living in debt?
If you're spending your entire income on things like food and rent, then a 1% wealth tax corresponds to 0% income tax.
If you're spending your entire income on investment, then there's a calculation like PG's to be made to compute an equivalent income tax rate. But then we're talking about someone who doesn't need the money. This isn't even about rich vs. poor - you can have a high income and spend it all as you make it, like if you throw a huge party every week, or make a yearly trip into space. But if not, then it's just an ever growing number on your bank statement, and the only reason you care about it being 20% higher is because you're comparing it to other people's bank statements.
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.
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.
This does make retiring a tad bit complicated. Say you've saved $3M and are ready to retire. That means each year you're spending $75K just to satisfy this tax.
[1] Depending on how your wealth is structured. Cash is 2.5%, but if you own, say, a business, you pay the tax on the value of the goods, not on the value of the building, hardware, etc. You don't pay Zakat on the house you live on. Agriculture is actually taxed at 10%, etc.
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.
The question then remains, does the sender add a bit more before sending to move any given amount, or do they pay a given amount with the recipient getting less?
The system certainly scales well for net-worth and one's economic activity.
The question then remains - who/what is considered an "outside" party for a tax to operate in financial flows? It could work well in an agentic economy if agents are considered as a single entity with flows not taxed between them.
The idea is that everyone must spend a certain amount of money to live. For the poor, that amount is a greater proportion of their total income and wealth.
Basically, a wealthy person can choose to pay the same taxes as a poor person by only spending as much as a poor person.
Maybe that's fair. Maybe it's not. But it is a criticism of sales/transaction 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.
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.
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.
[1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/S/bo256019...
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.
Explained here: https://gemini.google.com/share/e230bcecaaeb
The reality is that the total financial effect of that sort of technique is not that considerable, but the political noise that can be made out of turning it into a perpetual problem (e.g. by only proposing to fix it with drastic non-solutions like wealth taxes) is gold to the people that profit from making us hate each other.
I think some relevant factors are missing. What is the polite way of putting it... Ah right! You are a clown!
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.
13.3%
> and presumably for billionaires, the Net Investment Income Tax,
NIIT kicks in at 200k, you presumably know this but I thought your comment could be misread as implying it only mattered for billionaires. :P
> 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
The author presumably understands this, but it's often more effective to pretend that your opposition is confused then to admit that you believe they are corrupt, unethical, dishonest, and actively trying to perpetrate evil. If nothing else, it gives them a more face saving avenue to course correct. And sometimes they really just didn't know better...
Economics is simple. Resources are finite, and money plus markets preserve that finitude as an invariant (that's why it works as a store of value). If you sit on more money and accumulate more money a natural consequence is that someone else has less access to the finite resources available (either in actuality or in potentia), period, because you can accumulate enough to begin to dictate how much they can access (by having decision power around wages). There is no reason to assume private individual wealth-hoarders have public interest in mind, and indeed they have often proven that they don't. They want to maximize value at specific points in the system, which is the literal definition of instability and eventual collapse in chaos theory. You need to bring the system back to stability through structural intervention and regulation. Tax the rich. Cap individual accumulation. It's that simple. The world does need or benefit from kings, whether minted through politic or finance.
- 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.
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.
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.
> In 1940, the federal tax rate on income over $200,000 started at 66 percent. By 1944, the top tax rate on all income over $200,000 — about $3.4 million in today’s dollars — had jumped to 94 percent.
https://inequality.org/article/tax-the-rich-we-did-that-once...
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.
Heck, it's even started in the UK with labour killing off salary sacrifice pensions, everyone one I know was reliant on those to be able to retire, but who gives a shit, we are private sector and we have no union!
I'm on a rant here, forgive me.
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.
I think there is kind of a breakdown in social order here. If society allows you to become the chief, it ought to also impose upon you a burden, an obligation, to wield your power over the tribe fairly, generously. To care for the weak, to make sure that everyone benefits, to ensure that things stay stable and safe under your leadership... The standard is higher, not lower. The sacrifice is greater, not lesser.
It is absolutely bizarre and you can see exactly thew way PG, and other like him, are thinking. They all want to have this immense power (and it truly is immense, more immense than ever in modern history!) but they want none of the obligation, none of the responsibility.
Even asking for 20 percent is too much, apparently.
It's really sick.
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.
If you accumulated a fortune, there was some skill at play. There was also considerable luck and some exploitation. The wealth tax is a way of paying back for the luck and exploitation.
You will still be extremely wealthy.
Paul wants to play the fairness card. Life is not fair and those who accumulated massive fortunes won the lottery. Don’t let the massively rich conflate issues. Don’t get fooled.
1- Fundamentally, they are magnitudes of different units, one is tax/income, the other is tax/wealth/time. Not only is the denominator different, one being calculated over income, the other over wealth, but there is an additional inverse time factor.
In income tax, whether the period is yearly or monthly or hourly, is an administrative matter that doesn't materially change the rate, 1%/month is the same as 12%/month, however in wealth tax, 1% wealth tax per year is not the same as 1% wealth tax per month. In many respects one might consider wealth tax to be a second order derivative of income with respect to time. Which is again very similar to a progressive income tax. Anyone that studied polynomials knows that there is no such equivalence between ax and bx^2, they are irreducible mathematical forms.
2)Trivially, in the scenario Paul proposed, Wealth tax is comparable to income tax only with respect to capital gains. That is, if he did find an equivalence between income tax and wealth tax for capital gains (which he didn't), income tax would still apply non capital gain taxes. But I will concede that there may be an argument that, if such an equivalence were found, it could be considered that there exists an Income Tax which will always yield more tax than another specific wealth tax.
3) The equivalence between wealth and income tax cannot be linear. The example given applied to 1% wealth tax and was compared to 20%, and a risk free interest of 5%. If the wealth tax were of 2%, 5% or 10%, would that be equivalent to 40%, 100%, and 200% income tax respectively? The last one is especially ridiculous.
Currently the country with the highest marginal income tax rate is Denmark, at 60.5%. The top US federal tax rate is 37%, and the median state income tax rate is Oklahoma's, which is 4.75%. 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%. [3]
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.
It should be noted that the marginal tax rate for high earners in the USA was higher than 60% from the 1930s through the 1970s.
Chart here: https://www.hrblock.com/tax-center/newsroom/income/the-histo...
Here is a cool website showing Wealth, shown to scale.
The language politicians use to sell to a general public does not have any correlation to their understanding of the mechanics. The people proposing this policy entirely understand the ramifications. That is the point of the policy.
The average person is already subject to something like a wealth tax through property taxes, in addition to also needing to pay taxes on their income. Join the club pal.
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.
This would close the gap between Buffett's tax rate and that of his secretary, but would not be the "highest taxes in the world" that PG decries.
Maybe he should spend his time trying to work with these politicians to design something that is more fair? Like making it actually act as a tax on unrealized gains over $1B (so that it takes cost basis into consideration) OR make it so that if you need to sell some assets to pay the tax, you can writeoff the wealth tax you paid from your regular/capital-gains income so that you aren't taxed twice? There's a lot of actually useful stuff he could write about in this policy area instead of blogging about the financial equivalence between stocks and flows.
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.
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.
I think that what you can tell is that they think the voting public won't understand the momentousness of what they're proposing (or that their "color" will cheer that very momentousness).
Whether they themselves do or don't understand how impactful the proposal would be is much harder to guess.
This might be one point of view, but if you imagine an economy where everyone is poor/living paycheck-to-paycheck, then this looks super wrong:
Everyone has $100, earns $100/month, and spends $100/month.
at 1% wealth tax, they pay $1/year.
at 20% income tax, they pay $240/year.
Those are obviously not interchangeable taxes from a government revenue perspective!
Since a lot of billionaires pay practically nothing in taxes, relative to their wealth, a wealth tax that equates to a 20% income tax would be entirely reasonable, and they'd still pay a much smaller percentage than the taxes I pay from my wages. It closes a loophole, it doesn't punish the very rich. And, nobody is suggesting the average 401k or Robinhood portfolio should be subject to a wealth tax.
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?
And this seems to be an intentional category error.
The idea is to redistribute from the ultra wealthy to everyone else. Why would you then pretend that these methods should be convertable?
Just keep the conversation simple:
- Everyone with more than 10m in assets pays wealth tax on the value above 10m.
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.
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.
i think about that mentality all the time
one person just said, I don't think I'm going to be able to change the world, but well, why don't I try anyway because I don't see anyone else doing it, and instead thinking that a politician is responsible for my future instead of me and you
such a great mentality, I really do think about it all the time
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.
I don't want to do math, but they aren't the same.
And people aren't investing 100% of their income in risk free 5% assets.
In the US the max federal tax rate is 20% on capital gains, that is the gains realized when you typically sell an asset. The max tax rate on ordinary income is 37%. Some states don't tax at capital gains at all. Others make also tax capital gains.
There are a myriad of loopholes to defer and minimise capital gains ranging from QSBS (first 10mil in small businesses) to trusts to foundations to offset losses. Billionaires are incentivised to hold their assets and let them accrue rather than deploying that capital.
Yes, you could argue that billionaires have earned his billions. But could you really argue that the tax system should be configured to reward them for sitting on those billions and those gains should be taxed at a rate lower than someone working every day to earn 200k in wage income?
The economy has a fundamental division between those who earn income off the gains on assets, and those who earn an income on wages. Wealth taxes help level the playing field by those who already have a tax system in their favor.
Trickel down economics does not work when you earn more holding on to what you have.
The more obvious reason to not tax wealth is because it's hard to measure, and if you try to do it you will incentivize hiding it. Meanwhile, there are obvious obvious loopholes that the ultra-wealthy enjoy which could be reasonably closed. Namely, close the buy-borrow-die loophole, don't allow step-up basis for inherited wealth, and tax capital gains at least as much as income. Now people with a lot of money can afford to fund a lot of premium think tanks to come up with fancy economic reasoning why those ideas are Really Bad™, but at this point it's clear that's bullshit propaganda and the unintended consequences are exceedingly unlikely to be worse than the current unchecked consolidation of wealth and power enabled by the current loopholes.
In my opinion it's not a tax on the employee but on the employer and one of very few solid methods of actually taxing the rich (for as long as the rich need labor to get richer).
Your income tax money never reaches your pocket so it's never a part of your actual income and if employer didn't pay your income tax, they are (not you) on the hook for that.
And if income tax rate was lowered to zero, the employer wouldn't automatically start paying you that much more. There would be a renegotiation and most of that money would stay with the employer, because you already agreed and demonstrate that you can work for as little as you do. Of course in specific cases that the position of the employee in the market is very strong, some companies might choose to use the money they don't have to pay as your income tax to compete for employers by offering higher salaries. But that's definitely not given. Company getting richer rarely automatically translates to higher salaries.
So employee, if the economy is strong, should advocate for as high income taxes as possible, because that one of the very few ways that the money in the economy flows from the rich to the poor (with a detour through governments, which are poor nowadays anyway, perpetually indebted to the rich).
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.
Rich people need to stop hanging out with other rich people.
https://www.propublica.org/article/the-secret-irs-files-trov...
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.
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.
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'.
https://www.nber.org/papers/w34170 https://www.propublica.org/article/how-we-calculated-the-tru...
Americans really struggle to understand how tax work outside of their country.
First, the whole premise of income to wealth tax equivalence is non sensical, because interests are rarely literally in the form of coupons/payments, but rather left as compounding value. This is the whole point of share buybacks, reinvested ETFs, etc; and Paul Graham knows that of course. If you are rich, you don't need the cash of your investments, so you don't want to trigger taxable events, so you are effectively at 0% tax rate and just let it compound.
> Currently the country with the highest marginal income tax rate is Denmark, at 60.5%
This is the most BS statement ever, and would only be believable to Americans with no understanding of how foreign country do taxes. Which is at best very naive of him, or highly disingenuous. This is because "tax" in the US is essentially employee paid, whereas most other countries split the bill between employer and employee at a higher proportion. The result is the same, but the employee part only is labeled "tax", the employer part being often called "contribution".
When comparing across countries, you have to look at the tax wedge (super gross to net), not the tax rate (gross to net).
And if you do that, well the US has a lower tax wedge than even the most generous European countries (Ireland).
In France for instance, the tax wedge is close to 70% for the higher bracket. Yes, that means if your employer pays $100, you get $30. And that's in a country with 20% VAT compared to US ~8%.
Not to mention, except super rich little little business-hub countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, Malta, Cayman Islands, etc), pretty much all _developed_ countries have some form of wealth tax, it's just common 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.
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.
The example mentioning $100 is just tasteless. Wealth taxes are relevant only to people for which $100 means absolutely nothing whatsoever.
The article carefully avoids clear words. What's your conclusion here, dear Paul? Why are you intentionally staying vague? Nobody asked how to convert between wealth and income tax. So exactly why are you educating the public about this topic?
[1] https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/billionaire-wealth-j...
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…
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.
Hell, I'll be the first in line to pay the damn tax so long as billionaires are right in line with me too.
His argument is incredibly disingenuous; the sort of people who will be affected by a wealth tax are the sort of people who find ways of avoiding paying income tax, or indeed any tax at all if possible.
It makes me very angry when these billionaires who build up enormous wealth, partaially by avoiding paying the taxes that fund the infrastructure that help them build their wealth, get upset at people who suggest that maybe they should pay something back to society.
Paul Graham should, maybe, stick to blogging about tech, because when he gets into politics he really shows his true colours... and it ain't pretty.
The "example" discussing paying income tax on your $5 of return on your capital is similar nonsense. You don't pay anything on that gain unless it's income, which it isn't unless it's realized. So (assuming the various parameters of a wealth tax meant this mythical $100 person would indeed pay a wealth tax), the comparison is between zero income tax and some nonzero amount of 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.
Plenty of politicians (e.g., Bernie Sanders, AOC) have pointed out that the top income tax rate during the 1950s was over 90%, and have suggested raising rates back or near to that level, which would be well more than a 20% increase in the income tax rate.
> None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing.
Income tax is progressive. So, not really.
Classic PG dishonesty. It's not mathematically the same, because it affects different people. "What is the income tax equivalent" isnt a relevant question unless your either stupid or desingenuous.
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.
Source: The Second Estate by Ray Madoff (2025)