By Daniel Brouse
July 30, 2024
There are numerous reasons why a wealth tax can be a self-defeating fiasco, and the case of taxing someone like Elon Musk vividly illustrates this. A wealth tax on high-net-worth individuals could create a complex and problematic feedback loop involving the sale of Tesla stock and the associated capital gains taxes. To meet his wealth tax obligations, Musk might be compelled to sell a significant portion of his Tesla shares. This large-scale sale could depress the stock price, particularly if the volume of shares sold is substantial, thereby reducing the value of his remaining holdings. As a result, Musk might need to sell even more shares to cover the same wealth tax amount.
Moreover, each sale of shares generates capital gains, which are subject to additional taxes. To pay these capital gains taxes, Musk would need to sell even more shares, perpetuating a cycle where each sale incurs further tax liabilities and necessitates additional sales. This continuous process could exacerbate the decline in Tesla’s stock price, compounding the need for further sales. Over time, this cycle could severely erode Musk’s holdings in Tesla and significantly diminish his overall wealth.
The ramifications of this feedback loop extend beyond Musk. The decline in Tesla’s stock price could adversely affect a wide range of stakeholders, including individual investors such as widows, orphans, and those with retirement accounts. Their investments could lose value as a result of the cascading effect of share sales driven by the wealth tax.
Furthermore, applying a wealth tax to other ventures like SpaceX and Neuralink could be even more detrimental. Such a tax could stifle innovation and growth in these groundbreaking companies, potentially leading to broader economic repercussions and undermining the very objectives the tax aims to achieve. Overall, the unintended consequences of a wealth tax could be far-reaching, affecting not just the wealthy but also impacting the broader economy and investment landscape.
The other impacts of such taxes on a larger portion of the population are likely to lead to even more devastating economic outcomes. Unlike any previous period of excessive taxation in the U.S., it is now much easier for capital to flee the country. The internet and technological advances make it simpler for wealth to move to less hostile environments. As a result, instead of creating more equity, these taxes could accelerate inequality.
Q: How much is Musk’s income, net worth, and projected wealth tax? Your scenario assumes that the wealth tax is onerous.
A: This scenario was based on a one-time net worth tax of 3.4%. It references a still circulating meme from 2021 that stated the $11 billion in income taxes Musk paid that year amounted to only 3.4% of his net wealth, suggesting that more should be paid. In any event, all wealth taxes, regardless of the rate, would present significant challenges. As soon as you tax wealth, it inherently declines. But even before that point, determining the value of assets is fraught with difficulties. For example, how do you accurately assess the value of companies like SpaceX or Neuralink? Their worth isn’t easily defined, especially given their potential for future growth and the speculative nature of their industries. If the wealth tax were applied annually, the challenges would be even greater. Yearly valuations would be required, and the volatility of asset prices could lead to significant fluctuations in tax liabilities, creating further complications for both the taxpayer and the tax authorities. Additionally, the administrative burden of assessing and enforcing such a tax could be substantial, potentially outweighing the benefits. More importantly, even if all their money were taken, it would do almost nothing to reduce the national debt. In fact, it could potentially have the opposite effect. This can be observed at the state level, with Tesla moving out of Delaware and California. Imposing a wealth tax could lead to wealth fleeing the U.S. A much better idea would be to tax pollution.
Q: What about a flat tax?
Actually, the US has a progressive income tax. In recent years, the top 10% of income earners in the United States have contributed significantly more to federal income tax revenues. Specifically, for the 2020 tax year, the top 10% paid 73.7% of all federal income taxes. This concentration of tax liability has increased over time, reflecting a greater share of total income and taxable income among the wealthiest individuals.
For comparison, the top 1% of taxpayers alone paid 42.3% of all federal income taxes in 2020, while the bottom 50% of earners contributed only 2.3%. Generally, progressive taxes on productivity can be detrimental to an economy and disproportionately affect the poorest individuals.
A Much, Much Better Approach
A more effective approach would be to tax negative externalities, similar to the taxation on cigarettes. For example, imposing a 100% tax on a barrel of oil and a 1,000% tax on a ton of coal could significantly disincentivize the use of fossil fuels. Such high taxes would make fossil fuels much more expensive, encouraging industries and consumers to transition to cleaner energy alternatives like wind, solar, and nuclear power. This shift would not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but also mitigate the broader environmental harm caused by fossil fuel extraction and consumption, including air and water pollution.
Pollution from fossil fuels is the leading cause of death globally, contributing significantly to respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The impact is disproportionately felt by the poorest and most disenfranchised populations, who often live in areas with higher pollution levels and have less access to healthcare. These communities are also more likely to suffer from the environmental and health consequences of fossil fuel extraction and burning, such as air and water contamination, leading to a cycle of poverty and illness. The burden of fossil fuel pollution is not evenly distributed; it exacerbates existing social and economic inequalities, making it a pressing issue for both public health and social justice. Addressing this challenge requires comprehensive policies that not only reduce emissions but also protect and uplift the most vulnerable populations.
Climate change will continue to exacerbate existing inequalities. As extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and other climate-related disruptions increase, those with fewer resources will struggle the most to adapt and recover. This growing inequality calls for a two-pronged approach: actively working to mitigate global warming and preparing for the socio-economic disparities it will inevitably deepen.
The Real Threat to Economic Security
Regrettably, the United States ranks among the least prepared countries globally, with the highest percentage of climate deniers. Politicians exacerbate the problem by hindering efforts against climate change. The Republican Party dismisses it as a manufactured crisis and plans to increase fossil fuel production. Political extremists asserting that the climate crisis is manufactured employ an ironic term, considering that human manufacturing activities are the primary driver of climate change.
Under President Biden, the United States continues to be the world’s largest producer of oil, including crude oil, natural gas liquids, and other petroleum products. Both political parties have concurred to allocate unlimited emergency funding for climate disasters instead of proactively preventing them. In 2023, the U.S. witnessed a record number of climate disasters exceeding one billion dollars each, totaling 28 separate weather and climate-related events.
In June 2024, the Supreme Court significantly expanded its authority and severely curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) ability to enforce environmental protection laws. This ruling represents a dramatic shift in the balance of power, undermining decades of regulatory progress aimed at mitigating environmental damage and climate change. The court’s decision essentially nullifies the EPA’s mandate to regulate emissions and enforce compliance with existing environmental standards.
This judicial overreach is viewed by many as an act of arrogance and ignorance, resulting in a scenario where “worst-case” predictions for climate change have become the “best-case” expectations. The ramifications of this decision are dire, prompting a revision of climate models to reflect a much grimmer outlook. The new projections indicate a potential maximum global temperature increase of 9°C within this century, a stark rise from the previously estimated 4°C over the next millennium.
The Impact of Hate on Political Perspectives and Society
The Politics of Climate Change