The economic justification for taxing wealth
There is growing inequality
It is now accepted inequality imposes a cost
At the same time every state accepts it has the duty to protect private property
But not all share in the benefit of doing so equally: some tread very lightly on the world’s wealth
The justification for a wealth tax is then that it’s a charge on the rent wealth enjoys from the protection the state provides to it
And this if my stash of wealth is offshore then there’s no justification for it to be taxed. Because that protection from the state is being provided by that offshore place where the wealth is stashed. Where I live isn’t protecting it thus can claim no rent for doing so.
And here’s the thing that really interests me. Is he really this stupid that he cannot see the holes in his own arguments?
Just to emphasise this. Imagine that I am a UK citizen resident in the UK. Ritchie’s argument is that my wealth can be righteously taxed by the UK because the UK protects my wealth. Well, think of that argument as you wish. I then earn some money elsewhere (say, I dunno, a book does well, I get royalties outside the UK). Which I stash in Panama. Ritchie would insist that both that income and that wealth should be taxed in the UK under normal circumstances. But this new argument says that it should not be: because that wealth is protected by the state of Panama which is protecting it.
Man’s an idiot.