← All arguments

Against a wealth tax economic

Government spending is too high

Public spending is already excessive, so any fiscal gap should be closed by cutting spending rather than by raising taxes — including a wealth tax.

The counter

Spending rises as living standards fall Even granting that spending is too high, decades of austerity have not stopped living standards and incomes from falling; as wages drop and asset prices rise, spending must increase to keep people from hardship. Spending falls durably only by reducing the need for support — enabling home ownership, affordable essentials, secure families, and debt-free education — which is an investment in society.
Copy-paste rebuttal Drop a sourced reply where this argument shows up

Reddit / long form

You're making the "Government spending is too high" argument against a wealth tax. Even granting that spending is too high, decades of austerity have not stopped living standards and incomes from falling — and as wages drop and asset prices rise, spending has to rise just to keep people out of hardship. Spending only falls durably by reducing the need for support: enabling home ownership, affordable essentials, secure families and debt-free education. That's an investment, and a wealth tax on the largest fortunes is how you fund it without squeezing the people already struggling.

Learn more: https://wealthtax.now/arguments/government-spending-too-high/

X / Bluesky / short form

You're making the "Government spending is too high" argument against a wealth tax. Austerity hasn't stopped living standards falling — and that pushes spending up. You cut the bill by investing so people need less support. https://wealthtax.now/arguments/government-spending-too-high/

Backed by

Where it's been said