George Hahn

In France, left-leaning parties unsuccessfully pushed for a tax that would have required people with fortunes more than 100 million euros to pay a minimum tax of 2% annually on their assets.

Narrower measures were enacted instead.

Wealth taxes are a tempting way to tackle inequality.

They're also an obvious means of raising revenue.

In America, $5 trillion worth of receipts and $7 trillion in spending is, again, a transfer of wealth from earners to owners as it's inflationary.

This isn't sustainable.

Fiscal strain in the UK prompted 30 economists to sign an open letter calling for a wealth tax to raise tens of billions of pounds.

Voters also liked this idea.

Three-quarters of British adults backed the idea of a 2% tax on wealth above 10 million pounds.

But wealth taxes aren't the answer.

In 1990, a dozen OECD countries had wealth taxes.

By last year, only three remained, in Norway, Spain, and Switzerland.

Most of the measures collected little revenue and failed to meet their goals, sparking concerns they could stifle innovation and growth.

In some cases, the super-rich packed their bags and fled.

If the mega-wealthy don't leave the country, they'll deploy accountants and lawyers to value their assets at 40% of what tax authorities believe they're worth.

How are you going to value a stake in a small business?

If you don't have the cash sitting in your bank account, will you have to sell assets to pay your bill?

Wealth taxes in the U.S.

would also face challenges on constitutional grounds.

Targeting people's assets may violate private property laws while creating massive administrative complexity.