I have been wanting to write on the issue of wealth, inequality and taxation for some time, and Project Syndicate has provided plenty of opportunity to do so, since it tends to publish, among other admittedly very worthy material, a sort of pseudointellectual job bulletin board for policy advisors peddling their service to hyperactive policy makers.

So it is just happenstance that I comment here on Ms. Pistor’s piece, which is not much worse, I think, than Piketty’s or the others that saprophyted on his wake.

Further, I will not address the direct philosophical point of the appropriateness of wealth confiscation, other than pointing out the sophism of arguments that are devoid of any measuring stick. Iin fact, it may be right that Mr. Gates could not have happened without the lawmakers and the cops who came before him, but what percentage does that justify taking from his production? Suppose the government took 50% of his wealth. After that, could you still make the same argument, that he stood on the shoulders of cops and, then, decide you can take another 50%, and after that? Still another half?

However, the thing I find more preposterous about the promotion of wealth taxes is their total lack of any meaning whatsoever.

Let us say we take, as some propose, two or six percent of Mr. Bezos’s “wealth”. That would mean that he would have to sell a substantial portion of Amazon stock. Forget for the moment that the stock would tumble, so he would have to sell some more to put together the money he needs. Forget that this would make him pay more than what would be the nominal assessment. Forget that many far less wealthy people would be hurt in the process.

The point is that Mr. Bezos would probably not consume one single burger, Epipen or home square foot less because of the tax. In fact, he probably would not change his consumption at all. Hence, no concrete economic resources would be made available for the state to distribute to the public.

Through accounting tricks, the higher tax revenue would provide the government cover to spend more, for sure, but the aforementioned burger, Epipen or home square foot would have to be taken from someone else via price crowding, i.e. inflationary stimulus.

In other words, the accounting trick of taxing Mr. Bezos amounts to just fiscal stimulus plus printing some money.

One thing the policy would achieve for sure is that the above two gentlemen, plus a lot of other less politically exposed wealthy individuals, would have less to invest. Not need to feel sorry for them, screw them if they cannot invest and earn money, right? Who cares, for instance, if Mr. Musk could not invest his Paypal wealth in Tesla? Or how about all the venture capital that has fueled so much innovation and prosperity in the US?

More generally, the engines of prosperity and uplifting would not happen without the investment of those who have wealth. It would be useful to assess whether this is the kind of spending (in productive investment I mean) that needs to be sacrificed to provide burgers, Epipens or home square feet, rather than using better the already substantial wealth that governments have at their disposal today or curbing the habit of protecting the rents of regulatorily protected sectors, most notoriously the healthcare profession.