I'm not sure european examples are a great comparison.
First, most european wealth taxes (including recently defunct ones) have much lower floors than US proposals. $1m instead of $100m. That changes a lot. France did experience "capital flight," famously Gerard Depardieu.
Second, "capital flight" has always been present in Europe. There's a long history of it, and practical realities make it relevant.
I do agree about depth though. One point that PG does address which is often skipped over is that a wealth tax is a "deplete billionaires" policy... or a "curb billionaire growth" policy. The premise is that the very wealthy are too wealthy and that this is bad.
A wealth tax is not like a VAT, corporate or personal income tax. The tax revenue is secondary, and relatively small. It's more like a tariff, tax as an economic policy tool.
I agree that considering a 2% wealth tax as a 70% depletion of wealth over 60 years is... not nuanced. The most important nuance being that you control most of this wealth for most of this time and will be paying your taxes out of interest. If you apply the model to actual examples (say Bezos or Buffet), you'll find that their wealth will still have increased... just at a reduced rate.
But, to be nuanced we also need to address the core question: "are billionaires bad for the rest of us?" That is the premise of a wealth tax, at least the currently popular one.
First, most european wealth taxes (including recently defunct ones) have much lower floors than US proposals. $1m instead of $100m. That changes a lot. France did experience "capital flight," famously Gerard Depardieu.
Second, "capital flight" has always been present in Europe. There's a long history of it, and practical realities make it relevant.
I do agree about depth though. One point that PG does address which is often skipped over is that a wealth tax is a "deplete billionaires" policy... or a "curb billionaire growth" policy. The premise is that the very wealthy are too wealthy and that this is bad.
A wealth tax is not like a VAT, corporate or personal income tax. The tax revenue is secondary, and relatively small. It's more like a tariff, tax as an economic policy tool.
I agree that considering a 2% wealth tax as a 70% depletion of wealth over 60 years is... not nuanced. The most important nuance being that you control most of this wealth for most of this time and will be paying your taxes out of interest. If you apply the model to actual examples (say Bezos or Buffet), you'll find that their wealth will still have increased... just at a reduced rate.
But, to be nuanced we also need to address the core question: "are billionaires bad for the rest of us?" That is the premise of a wealth tax, at least the currently popular one.