A total of eight countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland) were known to have collected revenue through a wealth tax in 1965.
In the ensuing decades, the number of countries reporting wealth tax revenue increased gradually and reached its peak in 1995, with 12 countries (Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) reporting revenue generated from this form of taxation.
Moreover, residential real estate assets, wherein the owner's daily domicile is situated, shall not be subject to taxation if their worth equals or falls under ARS 30,000,000 (approx.
The Belgian Parliament adopted the adjusted tax on securities accounts law applicable from 26 February 2021, with the first reference period ending on 30 September 2021.
[18] Following the COVID-19 pandemic, the richest Colombians will face higher taxes on wages, dividends, and properties, as well as a one-time "solidarity levy" on high incomes.
The bill aims to collect about 25 trillion pesos (US$6.9 billion) a year through new taxes and budget restraints, equating to 2.2 percent of GDP.
[19] On 13 December 2022, the Colombian President Gustavo Petro enacted Law 2277 of 2022, which contains the tax reform proposals previously approved by congress.
[20] Since 2018, France has had a wealth tax based on real estate (impôt sur la fortune immobilière [fr], IFI).
[citation needed] Similar to Iceland, Denmark taxed household income above a certain exemption threshold, which was about the 98th percentile of the wealth distribution, until 1997.
[40] In 2014, French economist Thomas Piketty published a widely discussed[41] book entitled Capital in the Twenty-First Century that starts with the observation that economic inequality is increasing and proposes wealth taxes as a countermeasure.
[45][46][47] In 2017, when introducing the fiscal reform of the solidarity wealth tax, the government of the French president Emmanuel Macron used the first argument of capital flight.
A big part of people paying this tax are in the ninth decile of income distribution and the “IFI” represents one over two household in the wealthiest 0.01%.
[55] The conservative-leaning nonprofit Tax Foundation estimates revenue generated by Senator Warren's proposal would total around $2.6 trillion over the next 10 years.
[61] Niemann and Sureth-Sloane found that, "Broadening the wealth tax base tends to accelerate investment during high interest rate periods."
Additionally, they argue that large established businesses use some of their wealth to retain market power, reducing innovation and competition.
[67][68] For example, an entrepreneur could generate much higher returns (though could conversely lose much more capital operating on leverage) than a wealthy individual with a conservative investment such as United States Treasury Bonds.
Richard Epstein, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, contents, "The classical liberal approach wants to simplify taxation and reduce regulation to spur growth.
However, this movement could be explained more by the increase in household income, the low level of interest rates on mortgage loans and the general dynamics of the real estate market than by a sale, on the part of wealthy households, of property subject to the IFI for the benefit of investments in transferable securities, therefore the result in investment on corporate are not significant.
"[77] Examples of such fraud and malfeasance were revealed in 2013, when French budget minister Jérôme Cahuzac was discovered shifting financial assets into Swiss bank accounts in order to avoid the wealth tax.
Once again this creates an opportunity of optimization, as the flexibility in sanctions is unequally distributed in the tax spectrum and thus in the different parts of the population.
assert that since wealth taxes are a form of direct asset collection, as well as double-taxation, they are antithetical to personal freedom and individual liberty.
[84] Further, these opponents may say wealth taxes place the authority of the government ahead of the rights of the individual, and ultimately undermine the concept of personal sovereignty.
It breaches a key principle that has made this country great: the gradual expansion of property ownership and the democratisation of wealth.
"[85] In 2004, a study by the Institut de l'enterprise investigated why several European countries were eliminating wealth taxes and made the following observations: 1.
[86] In a 2011 study, the London School of Economics examined wealth taxes that were being considered by the Labour party in the United Kingdom between 1974 and 1976 but were ultimately abandoned.
As efforts progressed, concerns were developing over the practicality and implementation of wealth taxes as well as worry that they would undermine confidence in the British economy.
The conclusion of the study stated that there were lingering questions, such as the impacts on personal saving and small business investment, consequences of capital flight, complexity of implementation, and ability to raise predicted revenues that must be adequately addressed before further consideration of wealth taxes.
In a lengthy essay from 2018, authors in the Indiana Journal of Law argued that "... the belief that the U.S. Constitution effectively makes a national wealth tax impossible ... is wrong.
[96][97][98] The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in Karlsruhe found that wealth taxes "would need to be confiscatory in order to bring about any real redistribution".
[99] In 2006, the Constitutional Court revised this decision on the so-called "Halbteilungsgrundsatz", stating that "From the property guarantee of the Basic Law, no generally binding absolute upper limit of taxation in the vicinity of a half division can be derived.