Wealth-tax proposals? That's rich.

WHEN government grows to dominate ever-larger shares of the economy and when politicians refuse to be responsible about what they spend, there’s a predictable next move: insist that the problem is “the rich” not paying enough.

- VERONIQUE DE RUGY CONTRIBUTING WRITER

NEW YORK MAYOR Zohran Mamdani believes a wealth tax on billionaires could help close the city's $12-billion budget gap.

(HEATHER KHALIFA Associated Press)

Never mind that high earners already shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden. Never mind that relying on a small and mobile group of people for the bulk of your revenue makes public finances more volatile, not more stable.

No, once spending is treated as untouchable and restraint as politically impossible, it’s only a matter of time before politics demands more, more, more. More taxes and more distortion. This helps explain why the wild new forms of wealth taxes are popping up.

California voters are heading toward a November ballot fight over the so-called “onetime” 5% tax on billionaires’ net worth, tied to residency on a date that’s already passed. Illinois lawmakers recently flirted with a tax on unrealized gains — think of stocks yet to be sold at fluctuating prices that only exist on paper — before retreating. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani wants a wealth tax to help close the city’s roughly $12-billion budget gap. And prominent progressive Democrats have explicitly endorsed national wealth taxes (e.g., proposals from Sen. Elizabeth Warren).

Different places, same impulse: Avoid hard fiscal decisions by squeezing a narrow group harder.