A conference in Barcelona heard bold opinions about the future of wealth taxation, with prominent voices weighing the benefits and risks of targeting large fortunes. Valentí Pich, president of the General Council of the Colleges of Economists, framed the discussion as a pivotal crossroads for how societies tax and redistribute wealth. The gathering drew international commentary, including insights from Juan Corona, a professor of Public Finance at Abat Oliva University and a Jean Monnet professor of European Financial Integration, who provided context on how different nations have approached wealth-related levies.
During the meeting, members of the Council of Economists examined proposals to modify or expand wealth taxes, noting regional experiments and fiscal incentives already enacted in several European regions. Andalusia announced plans for a 100% bonus on a proposed wealth-related levy, joining initiatives in the Community of Madrid and Galicia that have historically offered substantial reductions. Corona reminded attendees that wealth taxes were common in the OECD a few decades ago and that a handful of countries, including Norway and Switzerland, maintained some form of this levy. He also pointed out that in France and Sweden, wealth taxes were scrapped for reasons tied to policy design rather than political pressure.
Jaume Menéndez, a member of the tax commission of the Col·legi d’Economistes de Catalunya, noted that while some nations do not maintain a broad wealth tax, many still tax wealth through targeted assets. Examples include real estate taxes in France and financial securities taxes in Italy. The conversation underscored a broader question: should a wealth tax exist at all, and if so, how should it be structured to avoid unintended consequences?
Corona explained that the Swedish experience, cited often in policy debates, revealed concerns about efficiency and fairness. He argued that the tax tended to become a levy on savings and investment, which could undermine economic dynamism in a modern economy. Collectability was another issue; in Sweden, the burden of the tax sometimes appeared disproportionate to the revenue it produced. He recalled that when Sweden abolished the tax, capital began moving across borders and overall revenue improved in subsequent years. Similar observations were made about France, where the reform pattern suggested that administrative costs and behavioral responses reduced the tax’s effectiveness.
Agustín Fernández, head of the Registry of Tax Advisory Economists (REAF), highlighted the concentration of tax revenue: less than six million assets accounted for a majority of the tax take in Spain. He noted that a small share of declarants controlled significant sums, with the top tier contributing a notable portion of revenue while a large number of declarations came from far smaller amounts. This data fed into doubts about the reach and fairness of a temporary solidarity levy proposed by the government and whether it would affect more than three million assets. The figures reinforced the sense that tax policy should balance stability, progressivity, and growth while avoiding distortions in asset markets.
Salvador Guillermo, deputy general secretary of Foment del Treball, defended the idea of keeping inheritance and wealth-related duties at moderate levels, arguing that while inheritance tax can influence savings and investment patterns, it should not blunt long-term wealth accumulation or entrepreneurial risk-taking. The debate also touched on other methods to tax wealth without discouraging investment, such as applying value-added tax surcharges on luxury goods or considering repeated wealth assessments at the moment of transmission at revenues that reflect current market values. Advocates argued that these approaches could target the wealthiest rather than broadly penalizing business owners and savers.
In addition to design details, the discussion highlighted transparency and data quality. Fernández called for clearer census-type reporting and a more nuanced approach to exemptions that take into account prevailing interest rates. He suggested that autonomous regions could adjust rates within a framework aimed at preserving fairness across the economy. The core thread across speakers was the need for thoughtful policy that protects revenue while minimizing adverse effects on investment, entrepreneurship, and mobility of capital. The participants acknowledged that wealth taxation is a delicate instrument—powerful in theory, but demanding careful calibration in practice—especially in a global economy where capital can move quickly and tax planning tools are sophisticated. [Citation: Council of Economists Conference, Barcelona, 2024]