Wealth Taxes Don’t Work No Matter Where They’re Imposed \ stacker news ~econ

pull down to refresh

Wealth Taxes Don’t Work No Matter Where They’re Imposed www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2025/10/06/wealth-taxes-dont-work-where-imposed?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

394 sats \ 7 comments \ @k00b 17h econ

But wealth taxes, like the window tax, don’t work . First, it sounds small, but a 2% tax on wealth is the equivalent of a 50% capital gains tax, assuming a 4% return on assets, and wealth taxes need to be paid even if someone’s investments lose money. Second, by removing so much capital from markets and reallocating it to the government, a wealth tax could lower growth and distort incentives.

The primary problem with a wealth tax, however, is that it is just very hard to implement. It gives the rich an incentive to either move somewhere with lower taxes or put their wealth in hard-to-value assets, such as art or private equity.

I hadn't thought of art/equity as tax avoidance before but it makes sense.

view all related items

312 sats \ 3 replies \ @SimpleStacker 16h

To all the socialists who think that all the problems would be solved if the rich just paid more taxes:

Do you think you are smarter than the rich? Do you think you can try and tax their wealth and they will just sit there quietly and take it?
If you acknowledge that they are probably smarter and more resourceful than you, then how do you propose to actually succeed in taking their resources?
By passing stricter laws? What will you do when they circumvent the laws or buy off a politician to pass favorable carveouts?
All your roads lead to either the gulag or the guillotine, and you need to just admit it.

Here's a hint: the rich are smart, but they're not totally sociopaths. They may be willing to accept somewhat higher taxes if they feel like it's going to fund a worthy cause. But when the government is dysfunctional and they see that the streets are unsafe and the public schools are a disaster, they are not going to want their money going to continue to fund a broken system.

Get your house in order first, and maybe people will have a slightly more positive attitude towards your government solutions. Until then, GTFO because you haven't demonstrated the worth of your proposals.

30 sats \ 2 replies \ @denlillaapan 16h

Do you think you are smarter than the rich? Do you think you can try and tax their wealth and they will just sit there quietly and take it?

I always think of this, especially since the very people who most push ideas like these are ones who're upset that the rich hide behind lawyers and shell companies etc. Like, what makes you think you'll overcome their avoidance tricks if you squeeze even harder?!

19 sats \ 1 reply \ @SimpleStacker 15h

Yeah I get so frustrated with them because even if I agree with then, which I don't, they give no thought to the efficacy of their solutions, only how it makes them feel morally. But if that's your mode of thinking it inevitably leads to gulags, because the only reason for failure you can entertain is to blame your enemies. Sadly they sadly don't see it because their brains are small

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 5h

Oh, reminds me of something in Bitcoin, lets say you dislike what someone else has or is doing, and you're trying to filter out that activity but it doesn't work, LOL

33 sats \ 0 replies \ @SwapMarket 13h

why are they hard to value? just value at cost base, and then again when sold. collect CGT while at it. it is better to hide 'excess' wealth in non-KYC bitcoin.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @fourrules 14h

I think there is one kind of wealth tax that might actually work, even if it wouldn't be popular amongst some/many Bitcoiners. I think it would work because it would directly target the greatest crisis we are facing, that nobody has any solutions for, one that is both terrifying and verifiable. Its the one major crisis that cannot be pinned down to doomerism and hysteria: Demographic collapse.

What I'm proposing is not a direct wealth tax, but a wealth tax via the back door. Governments know that childless high net worth individuals are a windfall, because inheritance taxes are far higher when they don't pass to children. In some places there are motions to allow people to grant their estate to grandchildren, nephews and nieces, as they fill the void left by the children that passed away or never came to be. These will never pass because states need that windfall, it's the only way they can avoid our reduce direct wealth taxes.

But what if states were smarter that this, what if they were pronatalist? What if retirees got tax relief on income and capital gains depending upon the number of grandchildren they have, and if childless people could 'adopt' families by putting their capital in a specifically designed trust so that those families inherited their estates, taxed as if they were their own children?

This would lead to direct redistribution in a pronatalist progressive tax policy, but with the benefit that the wealthy person chooses the families, partially based upon the number of children, but also based upon their values and prospects as stewards of that capital.

This might split the wealthy down the middle, between those with a stake in the future, and those who just want a bigger pile than the average Joe.

Its either this, or the future is a dead millennial found weeks or months after they had a stroke in their kitchen, by a chap walking his dog.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @kepford 14h

Thanks for sharing. We need to post more of the truth about socialism. It won't save the morons but there are sinscerly ignorant people that are not stupid.