The tax debates currently underway in France and the discussions planned for the 2024 G20 summit demonstrate that the issue of tax justice and the taxation of billionaires is not going anywhere. There's a simple reason for this: the sums amassed by the world's wealthiest individuals over the last few decades are quite simply gigantic. Those who consider this a secondary or symbolic issue should take a look at the numbers. In France, the combined wealth of the 500 largest fortunes has grown by €1 trillion since 2010, rising from €200 billion to €1.2 trillion. In other words, all it would take is a one-time tax of 10% on this €1 trillion increase to bring in €100 billion, which is equal to all of the budget cuts the government is planning for the next three years. A one-time tax of 20%, which would remain very moderate, would bring in €200 billion and allow as much additional spending.
Yet some people continue to reject this debate, and their arguments need to be carefully examined. The first is that these immense private fortunes are merely theoretical and don't really exist. While it's true that they often appear as numbers on a screen, just like public debt or salaries paid into bank accounts, these figures have a very real impact on people's lives and influence the power dynamics between social classes and public authorities. Concretely, how would billionaires pay this 10% tax on their wealth increase? If they don't make enough profit in a year, they'll have to sell some of their shares – say 10% of their portfolio. If finding a buyer is challenging, the government could accept these shares as payment for taxes. If necessary, it could then sell these shares through various methods, such as offering employees to purchase them, which would increase their stake in the company. In all cases, net public debt will be reduced accordingly.
Defeatist speech
The second argument often heard is that modern governments are too weak to impose anything on billionaires. With globalization and the free movement of capital, billionaires can simply relocate to more favorable jurisdictions, making any expected tax revenue vanish. While this argument may seem convincing to some, in reality, it is hypocritical and weak. Firstly, it was governments that set up the free movement of capital, upheld by a sophisticated legal system backed by the public courts, which could potentially be changed. Secondly, this argument reflects an abandonment of sovereignty, particularly from political leaders who frequently discuss the need to restore government authority but often find it easier to exercise their authority over the poor than over the powerful.
You have 50.07% of this article left to read. The rest is for subscribers only.