Clearly, taxing the extremely rich is an important thing
So important that The Guardian gives us not one but two pieces demanding more of such taxation. One is from Gabs Zucman:
His fealty earned him a quasi-cabinet position, the direction of the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge), with total freedom to slash government spending not to his liking.
During his tenure, Doge shut down the US Agency for International Development (USAID), leading to the termination of numerous programs tackling malnutrition, HIV and preventable diseases around the world. A study published in the Lancet found that these funding cuts could result in more than 14m deaths, including 4.5m in children younger than age five, by 2030. Great wealth is never “virtual”.
That was, of course, government power being wielded there. Whether well or badly is something to be debated. But there’s no way any private citizen could have done that, it required the machinery of government. Therefore - obviously - it is government power, not private citizen power, which is to be feared.
But Gabs is pushing his book:
A recent body of research, summarized in my book We Need to Tax Billionaires, has established that the super-rich pay very little income tax, because they find ways to report very little income. There was even one year when Jeff Bezos pretended he was so poor that he claimed – and received – the child tax credit. All of this may be legal, but it fuels the explosion of wealth and power at the top.
Yes, we have, we did read it. The central contention is that the rich do not consume all of their income. This enables them to invest/reinvest some of their income. This is, apparently, bad and that money should be taxed off them. And, well, we’re not sure about that. That capital investment is done by people who have shown - have proven - that they’ve a talent for capital investment, that’s why they’re rich, seems like a pretty good idea to us. Rather than by those with so little talent that they’ve had to go into politics to make a living. But, you know.
The other is from Ingrid Robeyns. Who has stated that no one should be allowed more than $10 million. Because, well, because, really. Digging back through her references we find the campaigning organisation stating:
The initiative takes an interdisciplinary approach through academic research, narrative influencing and citizen engagement.
Narrative influencing is, to translate for the reader, also known as “Up the propaganda, Comrades!”
The subject is indeed important but we’d suggest that rejecting this importuning would be a good idea. For there’s also that other idea just out from M. Piketty. We should tax the rich lots and lots in order to stop economic growth in its tracks. And, umm, we really do need to be absolutely certain that we want to stop economic growth in its tracks before we tax the rich lots and lots, don’t we?
All those in favour of making our own grandchildren poorer?
Tim Worstall