00:00:00
The concept of a billionaire's
tax is one that has become somewhat fashionable for
political leaders in the last
00:00:06
several years. They see it as a
necessary way to somewhat level the playing field between the
haves and the have nots.
00:00:14
California is the latest state
to bring this idea forward. But do these ideas work? And we
asked that question and more of
00:00:22
Kent Smetters, who's Faculty
Director of the Penn Wharton Budget Model. He's also
Professor of Business, Economics
00:00:27
and Public Policy at the Wharton
School. Kent, great to catch up again. How are you, sir?
00:00:31
It is good to be back. Doing
well. Hope you guys are doing well as well. Thank you. We are. I guess,
let's start with the— I think, to
00:00:39
put some background on this, the
idea of a tax like this, where did it actually come from in the
first place?
00:00:46
Yeah, yeah. So there's— at Penn
Wharton Budget Model, we did some—a little bit of surveying, as
well as talking to a lot of
00:00:55
business leaders and
policymakers and so forth. And there's a couple things that
keep coming back that both come
00:01:02
from the left and the right on
the political spectrum. Kind of— kind of fallacies, if you will,
in terms of how to get money and
00:01:09
why the budget problem is not
necessarily a big problem, which is actually not true. But one of
these is that, man, there's just so
00:01:17
much revenue out there that
we're not getting, in the form of kind of really wealthy people,
billionaires. And so the simple
00:01:25
idea was, okay, suppose that we
actually tried to grab all that money. And so I just did a
hypothetical exercise with
00:01:33
policymakers, and said the
following. "Listen. I mean, suppose we do the following
kind of upper bound calculation."
00:01:39
We say, '"All right, let's just
outlaw being a billionaire. Let's
00:01:43
just actually grab all the
wealth above $999 million, and more nines and change. And we'll
grab everything above $1 billion.
00:01:53
And then let's suppose
hypothetically that we could actually get it, if the money
can't be moved. Let's suppose
00:01:59
hypothetically that we could
then sell all those assets at current market prices. That we
wouldn't— you know, market
00:02:07
prices wouldn't plummet. We won't
be selling it at a fire sale and so forth. With— even with all that,
you know, pretty— call it
00:02:17
egregious, you know, extreme
assumptions in terms of modeling, how much money could
we actually get? How much— for
00:02:25
how long could we actually fund
the federal government?" And people— just the way I ask that
question, people often think,
00:02:33
"Okay, it must not be a big
number." So they'll guess, like, you know, maybe 10 years, 15
years. And it actually turns out
00:02:39
it's around 8.8 months right
now. And so it's way less than what people think. And so people
are just completely uncalibrated
00:02:49
in terms of the size of the
federal problems that we have, in terms of the size of the
spending that we have, the size
00:02:56
of the federal budget deficits
that we have, the exploding debt path that we're on. And that
lack of calibration is really on
00:03:03
both sides. So I'm picking a
little bit more on the left right now, but the right has its
own problems in terms of how
00:03:08
they're conceptualizing AI and
things like that. But the assumption, I guess, is
that if you were to bring a tax
00:03:15
like this into play, that it
would have a significant impact on reducing debt. In this case,
in a state. Because it seems
00:03:23
like states are the ones that
are trying to move this forward here. But other countries have
tried this as well.
00:03:28
Yeah. And almost every country,
except for three, who've tried it have gotten rid of the
wealth tax. And the reason why
00:03:37
is that consistently, they've
found that it's raised a lot less revenue than they
originally projected. And so
00:03:47
over a dozen countries—
including France, by the way, that's, you know, currently hot
debate about this idea right
00:03:53
now— had wealth taxes. They all
got rid of it, because they realized that the distortions
caused to the economy just way
00:04:02
outweighed any revenue that they
were getting. In fact, the revenue that they're actually—
you know, it's way less than
00:04:07
they're expecting. And that's at
a country level. I mean, it's much harder to move your assets
out of a country. Much easier to
00:04:16
move your assets out of a state
like California, especially when you think about, so much of the
wealth in California is tech based.
00:04:24
And so as a result of that, I
mean, lots of that can be done— you know, if I'm an owner or
founder of one of the big tech
00:04:31
companies, I can easily move my
domicile to another state. Right. You can go from California
to Nevada or Utah, or wherever else
00:04:40
you wanted to go.
- Or Texas. There's Texas. Yeah. Exactly. One of the things, though, I guess you also
have to consider, is the cost of
00:04:48
running a program like this.
Correct? It is, it's— here's
the— what makes it a little bit
00:04:54
different than other programs,
and that is, usually, when it comes to things like income,
even a sales tax, things like
00:05:02
that, it's pretty clear what
you're measuring. The problem with wealth is that a lot of
wealth is not publicly traded.
00:05:10
It's not marked kind of daily.
Yes, your 401(k) accounts and your other, you know, taxable
accounts are marked pretty
00:05:18
frequently in terms of their
value. But that's not true for— with a lot of wealth owned by
billionaires. A lot of it's very
00:05:26
private. And the last marking of
that wealth, even if it's venture backed— I mean, that
last series that might have
00:05:33
been— you know, that evaluation
was established— was maybe a couple years ago. And so it
actually is not marked very
00:05:42
frequently. So here's the
problem, is that I could actually be a billionaire and
not actually know it. And so
00:05:49
what happens if my company does
take off in value? My next funding round, I go from $100
million valuation to a $2 billion
00:05:57
valuation. And then when
it was only worth $100 million based on a pretty dated funding
round, you know, the government
00:06:05
says, "No, no, no. That was really
worth— you know, in the intermediate time, it was really
worth a billion dollars. You
00:06:11
should have— you should have
been paying taxes on that." And so as result, you're going to
have a lot of people having to
00:06:17
do these valuations just in
case, so they don't commit tax fraud or get accused later. So
anybody who is hopeful that
00:06:26
their company's gonna pop in
value, unless you just had a really recent funding round, you
better be doing these valuations
00:06:34
a lot, and including everything,
including your jewelry, your property, private property,
everything— a house should be
00:06:44
marked and valued. And that's a
really tough exercise to do. So I think we've laid out the
case where a billionaire's tax
00:06:53
is very tough to kind of pull
off. So then, what are some of the other options potentially
out there that need to be
00:07:00
considered in order to deal with
the level of debt that we are seeing, not only at the federal
level, but at the state level as
00:07:07
well?
- Yeah. So, California has had this
problem for several decades, where their revenue bounces
around a lot through the
00:07:16
realization of capital gains.
And the problem is— in fact, this happened just a couple years
ago. Big revenue increases
00:07:23
because of realization of
capital gains, especially during COVID and so forth. And so what
happens is that they will
00:07:30
project this out and say,
"Hey, you know what? We're gonna get all this fancy revenue going
forward, and we're gonna spend
00:07:36
that money." So they put
themselves on a spending path going forward that is assuming
this revenue comes in, even
00:07:42
though their own equivalent of
the CBO, called the LAO, warns them that that's not true. They
still do it anyway. So they get
00:07:49
this big mismatch between
spending and actual revenue coming in. And this has happened
multiple times before in
00:07:55
California. So ultimately,
unless they get that spending down, they're gonna have to get
revenue up. A wealth tax is gonna be very
00:08:02
hard to do it. And so it's—
you're back to your classic means of more income taxes,
which already is pretty high in
00:08:10
California, especially at the
high end. You know, put the highest marginal tax rate in
California added to the federal
00:08:17
rate. Those people are actually
paying the majority of their income in taxes. And so over 50 cents
on the dollar in taxes. So it's
00:08:28
already fairly distorting. So
there's pretty much no option in California outside of really
broad-based taxes like a more
00:08:36
aggressive sales tax, a value-
added tax, something of that nature, where they're going to
get more— a lot more revenue.
00:08:41
They're going to have to do some
combination of bringing the spending down. And if they, in
fact, want more revenue, it's
00:08:47
going to have to be very broad-
based. Kent, always great to talk with
you and get your insight. Thanks
00:08:52
very much. Pleasure. Thank you. Kent Smetters,
who is Faculty Director of the Penn
Wharton Budget Model, and also
00:08:59
Professor of Business, Economics
and Public Policy here at the
Wharton School.