The Tax Justice Network said trillions could be raised with a ‘featherlight’ tax on the 0.5% of richest households, copying a current Spanish tax

Governments around the world copying Spain’s wealth tax on the super-rich could raise more than $2tn (£1.5tn), according to campaigners calling for the money to help finance the climate transition.

As a growing numbers of countries consider raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy, the Tax Justice Network campaign group said in a report that evidence from a “featherlight” tax on the 0.5% richest households in Spain could help raise trillions of dollars globally each year.

The Spanish government, under the socialist prime minister, Pedro Sánchez, introduced a temporary “solidarity” wealth tax in late 2022, which is collected in 2023 and 2024, on the net wealth of individuals exceeding €3m (£2.6m). It is estimated to apply to the richest 0.5% of households.

    • baru@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      3 months ago

      The rich usually ensure that there are enough gigantic exceptions. And these exceptions often aren’t reported upon.

      And maybe he believes the trickle down economy bs.

      • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Trickle down is complete BS and the many ways to avoid wealth taxes are part of the problem with them. You need to properly tax income and capital gains and close as many of the loopholes around each as possible. Then add a proper estate tax as well to reduce inter generational wealth

        • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Also require greater transparency around money movement and proper auditing. Governments need to spend more on auditing.

    • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      Of the counter-productive effects? I have a bunch of shares in a private company that I was given for good performance and retention. At the latest share price from the latest funding round they’re worth more than enough to put me in the 0.5%. However, they’re not liquid - I can’t sell them unless the company floats or is bought. Under a simple wealth tax I’d have to pay many thousands of pounds of tax on them every year despite them having no realisable value. Just because something is an asset with a nominal value doesn’t mean it’s liquid or generating income. Obviously when (if) I sell the shares I’ll pay capital gains, or if they generate a dividend, income tax.

      • tburkhol@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 months ago

        I’m sure you’ll understand if the rest of us are skeptical of a guy worth $20M arguing against a wealth tax.

        I mean, you’re right that restricted shares are a special problem in assessing “wealth,” but that’s why tax laws are complicated and full of loopholes.

        • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m in favour of tax and rich folk paying more, but a naive imagining that a simple wealth tax is the answer just isn’t helpful. I’m against wealth taxes because they’re crap taxes - they’re easy to avoid, easy to get caught in by accident if you’re not employing an expensive accountant, and therefore a rubbish way of raising money

      • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        If the shares can be owned by you, they can be owned by someone who is not you. You don’t have to worry about liquidating them. We’ll go ahead and do that for you.

        If your “private” company wants to stay “private”, they won’t secure funding from the ultra wealthy, or they will be ready to buy back your tax-shares at auction.

      • Nougat@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That seems painfully simple to make an exception for: assets you are not legally allowed to sell, transfer, convert, use as collateral would be excluded.

        • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          And that creates a loophole that is trivially easy to exploit, which is the problem. I simply wrap up any asset I want to hold onto into a fund or trust that stops me doing the above…

          • Nougat@fedia.io
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            If the asset was ever legally liquid while in your possession, it qualifies for the tax.

            • MoonManKipper@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Something can be legally liquid, but not practically liquid. Like a house. For example the Board of the company could give me permission to sell, but why would they?

              • tburkhol@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                10
                ·
                3 months ago

                You know that people pay taxes on the wealth embodied in their house, every year, right? Not even their equity in the house, but the full value - both the piece they own and the piece the bank still owns. Their primary residence is most of the wealth for most of the middle class, so we already have a wealth tax for everyone but the ultra-wealthy.

              • Nougat@fedia.io
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                3 months ago

                I’m sure you’re also aware of tax brackets? The same concept can be applied to wealth tax: legally liquid assets above a certain threshold would be taxable. Owner-occupied homes would be exempt.

                This is a lot easier than you think.