Excerpt: America’s top 1% enjoy a fifth of the economy’s income and pay nearly a third of its federal taxes. Many politicians think they should cough up much more. Zohran Mamdani, New York’s mayor, wants a new 2% city levy on incomes over $1m. Virginia, Rhode Island and Washington state are weighing up similar measures; Californians are likely this year to vote on a “one time” 5% levy on billionaires’ wealth. In Europe, too, there is a similar clamour to target the wealthy. France has seen a popular campaign for a wealth tax. And with Sir Keir Starmer weakened or doomed as prime minister, the left wing of Britain’s Labour Party may implement one of its own. The “Robin Hood” state, which takes from the rich to give to the poor, has obvious appeal. Governments across the developed world are strapped for cash. Budgets are burdened by legacy debts, ageing populations and the need to spend more on defence. But few politicians will countenance raising broad-based taxes at a time when voters, scarred by the high inflation of the early 2020s, are worried about affordability. Booming stockmarkets, meanwhile, have reinforced the idea that inequality is too high. And it always sounds good to say someone else will foot the bill.
…
Both the standard of living in a society and the rate of innovation are strongly positively correlated with the progressivity of the tax system. Yet we should believe the author’s unsourced “research” that supposedly proves having wealthy people live in slightly smaller mansions will dampen innovation somehow. Horseshit. Both the Netherlands and Switzerland, countries that are more prosperous and more innovative than the US, have wealth taxes (albeit not very high ones) and far more progressive income tax brackets as well (albeit not at Nordic levels).