Home Economics We Don't Need A Wealth Tax To Pay For The Coronavirus

We Don’t Need A Wealth Tax To Pay For The Coronavirus



The claim is being made that there should be a wealth tax to pay the expenses of the coronavirus. This is not so and it’s not so for the obvious reason that we’re not paying for the coronavirus through taxation, we’re doing so through creating new money. That’s what QE is and that also what Modern Monetary Theory is, neither of which say we should tax wealth as a result.

But still there are those insisting we should have such a tax:

Labour has called for the government to introduce a wealth tax if the economy fails to recover because “those with the broadest shoulders should be making more of a contribution”.

Anneliese Dodds, the shadow chancellor, said it was fair that the “very best-off people” should help to pay for the cost of the coronavirus crisis if the economic recovery stalled.

As a first pass of course the claim is idiocy. If there isn’t a recovery then increasing tax is the very last thing we’d want to do in the first place. And if there is a recovery then we’ve not got to have a new tax to pay for something that has already happened.

It’s also true that using the MMT – of monetisation of fiscal policy to give the old name, route doesn’t imply higher taxes either. Once the recovery has happened then we reduce the money supply to stave off the incipient inflation. The most obvious way to do this is to sell the QE bonds back into the market.

Certain MMT people say they don’t want to do this, instead they would tax to take that money out of the economy. But taxing the rich would be the wrong way to do that. As is well known the rich save some portion of their incomes and the poor spend it all. We need to suck money out to prevent inflation – we must obviously tax the poor then as it’s that consumption, not saving, which is creating the inflation.

So there’s no actual link between a wealth tax and paying for the coronavirus. So, why’s it being suggested?

Because standard economic theory says – shouts – that we shouldn’t tax wealth. We like people investing because that is what makes the future richer. We get less of what we tax so tax successful investments and we’ll get less investment. The future will be poorer, that’s a bad thing. Optimal taxation theory actually says that wealth – and the income from it – shouldn’t be taxed at all. So, the people proposing a wealth tax are running against that standard tax theory.

Not because they disagree with the theory, not in the sense that they say “Aha! There’s the fault!” but in the sense that they don’t like the prescription that arises from the theory. Thus they ignore it and ever try to find some excuse why the rest of us should.

There is no good reason to have a wealth tax to pay for the coronavirus. What is being essayed, the idea being floated, is that the coronavirus might be a good excuse to institute what we shouldn’t have, a wealth tax.

The correct response to this is that it’s not a sufficient excuse however much some drool at the joy of being able to tax the plutocrats.



  1. A wealth tax fails on the first two criteria for a tax – being able to define how much should be pid by each individual and ability to pay.
    So demonstrates the stupidity or duplicity of Anneliese Dodds (I think stupidity because she thought growth, rather than inflation, eroded the value of debt).
    However it is inevitable the bill will have to be paid by those with wealth and.or incomes – because no-one else can pay it.

  2. The intention is not to raise cash. The intention is to punish. In reality of course it’s just plain confiscation and what a pity there aren’t tumbrils and guillotines any more.

    • @ Michael van der Riet
      As someone who has worked hard for fifty years I am rather glad they don’t have tumbrlls and a guillotine as people like me would be a target for those who wanted an excuse to steal our savings.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here


in British English
expunct (ɪkˈspʌŋkt)
VERB (transitive)
1. to delete or erase; blot out; obliterate
2. to wipe out or destroy

Support Us

Recent posts

American Hyperconsumerism Is Killing Fewer People!

This report does not say what the Guardian headline writers think it does: Three Americans create enough carbon emissions to kill one person, study finds The...

Contracts Often Lag New Revenue Streams

I've been - vaguely and not with any great interest - anticipating a story like this: Scarlett Johansson sues Walt Disney over Marvel’s Black Widow...

Richard Murphy Rediscovers Monetarism

We have a delightful example of how Richard Murphy simply doesn't understand the basic nuts and bolts of the economics he wants to impose...

Vox Is Missing The Point About Having A Constitution

Not that we should be all that surprised by this from the progressives at Vox. No government- well, no one not controlled by...

So Let’s Have An Elitist Technocracy Instead!

There's been a certain amount - OK, a lot - of squealing in the US about how democracy is the ultimate value and we...

Recent comments