Taxing the wealthy won't reduce their power

As someone who has been arguing for more than a decade that these taxes are bad economics, I find all this disheartening. I missed the point. I thought the argument was about the optimal allocation of resources, but it is really about the redistribution of power. I concede that the concentration of power among the wealthy can be harmful. But using the tax code to fix it will create worse problems.

Wealth taxes — that is, taxes on assets as opposed to income — are bad economics because they are nearly impossible to collect, to the point where they are self-defeating and can often result in less tax revenue.

They not only discourage entrepreneurship and job creation, but also distort capital allocation. All of this is bad for growth. Still, one of the economists behind the California tax has admitted that it may reduce wealth in the economy overall, but that is a price worth paying because inequality is so toxic.

Other prominent economists argue the problem with wealth inequality is that it makes the rich too powerful: They can lobby the president and Congress to ensure they maintain their status, which can distort markets and policy. This is a fair point! No one elected Elon Musk, who has amassed a lot of power in markets, media and even the government.

At the same time, it worries me how much anger is directed at the wealthy. Increasingly, Americans don't see self-made billionaires as success stories worthy of admiration. Nearly half of Americans despise them, seeing the wealthy as the beneficiaries of a corrupt system who got rich at their expense.

I can point out, as I have, that wealth creation is not zero-sum, or how much the U.S. economy benefits from companies such as Amazon and the jobs they create. But the anger is there, and it exists for a reason: Many positional goods and services are in short supply. If you're not wealthy, it is hard to move, or find a home you like, or afford many things that now feel necessary to a middle-class life. There is resentment that the rich live by different rules. They don't have to worry about paying their mortgage, affording good schools or finding a job with health insurance.

Now we are told all our jobs could disappear — just as the rich who have created the job-stealing technology get richer. The subsequent resentment could tear the U.S. apart, which could be another reason to justify punitive taxes on the wealthy. The result is the societal equivalent of what we economists call a doom loop.

I am not saying that there are no serious issues at stake. My point is that high taxes are not the way to address them. No, Musk does not always spend his money wisely. But I am not convinced the government would do better.

There are at least two other flaws with this rationale for a wealth tax. One is that imposing high taxes on the wealthy won't necessarily reduce their power; it will simply reallocate it to bureaucrats. True, they are theoretically accountable to the public, but giving them more influence is a recipe for more corruption.

At least billionaires are subject to the discipline and transparency of the market and their shareholders. Another flaw is that a lot depends on who decides what counts as "too much" wealth. Maybe it's $1 billion today, but who's to say that won't be lowered over time, or used against perceived political enemies? Appropriating wealth to limit power has certainly not worked well in other countries.

Don't get me wrong: Taxes are a necessary fact of life. Americans have big expectations for their government, and it doesn't collect enough revenue to finance itself. The very rich are already paying a lot, but they could pay more. But the principles of good tax policy aren't about resentment or power — they're about raising revenue while minimizing distortions, maximizing feasibility and emphasizing salience.

Concentration of power is a problem, especially when paired with a corrupt government. But that can be better addressed by working on the weaknesses and loss of trust in institutions — public, private and those in between. If you think the rich have too much power, fine. But punishing them by making them less rich will only make everyone poorer by reducing growth. And if inequality makes people resentful, a no-growth economy will make them even more so — and miserable besides.

(COMMENT, BELOW)

Allison Schrager, a Bloomberg columnist, is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.

Previously:
• A wartime economy would be different this time
• Why aren't Americans working as hard as they used to?
• $100,000 in Social Security benefits is too much
• The Laffer Curve is no longer a punch line
• Yes, Americans are saving enough for retirement
• Is free trade worth the cost in lives lost?
• Mamdani's New York is flirting with fiscal nihilism
• America's human capital is eroding
• Musk is wrong about AI and retirement --- You still need to save
• Go ahead and resent boomers but for the right reasons
• Raiding your 401(k) to buy a house should be an option
• Americans are living in the worst of all tax worlds
• Think of college like you would a junk bond
• The economy needs a little bit of unfairness
• The pension revolution is better for savers
• Affordability isn't a hoax. It's not a crisis for most, either
• America gets retirement wrong. Can Vanguard fix that?
• The American middle class is shrinking, and that's OK
• Want to buy a home? It's OK to wait till you're 40
• Mamdani is benefiting from New York City's changing workforce
• How can an economy this good feel this bad?
• Why boomers have more money than everyone else
• Democratize private investment?
• Lab-grown diamonds are testing the power of markets
• Inflation ate your free lunch, but you're still better off
• Good debt? Bad debt? There's no such thing
• Megabills didn't break the economy before and won't now
• America's broken politics is breaking economics, too
• A college degree is no longer a risk-free investment
• Break up Columbia? Maybe, and the rest of the Ivy League, too
• Even Dems might like MAGA accounts
• Reality Check about possibile volatility in trade war
• Is this really how American exceptionalism ends?
• The free-market conservative is a vanishing breed
• Shareholder capitalism is back
• Europe's risk aversion comes with consequences
• The Oxford curriculum that American universities need
• Private equity won't diversify your portfolio
• The era of declining interest rates may have come to an end, and many investors don't seem to realize it
• This one weird trick could save the U.S. economy
• The Fed's damage to the housing market may last years
• The future of unions looks very different
• To bring back the office, bring back lunch
• Does it really matter who gets into Harvard?
• Our pensions shouldn't be used to juice the economy
• A soft landing won't mean the economy is safe
• The 30-year mortgage is saving the U.S. economy … or is it?
• The one true secret to successful investing
• Less work, more burn-out
• When did risk become a bad word in the U.S.?
• AI-proofing your career starts in college
• Biden has to learn the same lesson as SVB
• Say it with Rubio: Changing clocks is stupid
• Sure, we'll return to the office in 2023 but not to stores
• How to manage the biggest risk of all: Uncertainty
• If you think U.S. pensions are safe, just wait
• Harry and Meghan and the perils of superstar culture
• Norman Rockwell's economy is never coming back
• Burned by crypto? Don't learn the wrong lesson
• Quiet Quitters are looking in the wrong place for meaningful work
• America's MBAs are the latest skeptics of capitalism
• Generation Z is getting a harsh lesson in stock risk
• The biggest threat to the U.S. economy is policymakers
• Buck up, boomers. You're still better off than your parents
• How to manage the biggest risk of all: uncertainty
• Startup boom is the kind of risk-taking Americans need
• Gen Z is too compliant to achieve greatness
• A bigger child tax credit isn't the poverty solution we need
• Finding your power in a higher-priced world
• The Biden administration's plans to double the tax rate on capital gains will prove costly to all Americans, not just the wealthy
• WARNING: Feel Good Now --- Pay Later: Stimulus is crammed with goodies but makes no economic sense
• The 'Stakeholder' Fallacy: Joe Biden's vision of capitalism is a recipe for failure