Ist eine Vermögenssteuer sinnvoll? Reaktion auf @highperformer.henning

Overview

The video argues that reintroducing a German wealth tax (Vermögenssteuer) is likely counterproductive—especially given Germany’s weak economy. It presents historical, economic, and administrative reasons against such a tax.

Economic context and motivation

• Germany is portrayed as economically strained:
  • reduced investments since 2010
  • a worsening consumer climate
  • a generally weak business environment
• The video claims the proposed remedy—higher taxes, particularly on the wealthy—ignores broader economic constraints.

Core claim: a wealth tax would harm investment and growth

The video’s main analytical line is that wealth taxes discourage capital formation and reduce productive investment. It cites several mechanisms:

• Lower return on capital Described via “return on capital employed / ROCE,” leading to slower investment.

• Employment impacts Referencing an ifo-based estimate, it argues that a 1% wealth tax could reduce growth and eventually employment (a long-term decline in employment is claimed).

• Revenue risk Even if revenue is projected, the video argues behavioral responses—such as avoidance/evasion and capital flight—plus economic slowdown could reduce the net fiscal benefit.

• Paid regardless of profitability It emphasizes wealth taxes can be due even when firms are not profitable, potentially forcing companies to:

  • use cash reserves, or
  • take on debt, which may then reduce their capacity to invest.

Business and SME/family-company focus

A central concern is the burden on:

• industrial SMEs
• family businesses

These are described as important job creators. The video warns this could lead to:

• more bankruptcies
• more “zombie” firms
• and, consequently, increased job losses

Inequality argument challenged

Supporters often claim wealth taxes reduce inequality. The video disputes this by citing an IW (German Economic Institute) simulation:

• Even with allowances, a 1% wealth tax would reduce inequality only minimally, using the “Gini coefficient” measure.

The video also argues that public debate often mixes up:

• income vs.
• wealth

implying confusion between households with high income and those with high wealth.

Historical and legal background used to question feasibility

The video provides a historical narrative:

• Germany introduced wealth taxation after WWI:
  • “Reich emergency sacrifice”
  • followed by annual wealth taxes
• After WWII, it became significant but was later suspended after the Federal Constitutional Court judged parts unconstitutional.
• A key reason given: valuation problems for real estate
  • assessment values were based on outdated reference years
  • leading to unequal treatment versus easily valued financial assets

Conclusion from this history: Because the valuation issues were not fully resolved, reinstating the tax would face the same structural challenges.

International trend: wealth taxes are rare and often abolished

The video claims that globally—especially across OECD countries—wealth taxes have declined sharply:

• from many OECD members to only a few

European examples highlighted:

• Spain, Norway, Switzerland: still described as remaining “comprehensive” cases
• France:
  • previously used a wealth/fortune tax but allegedly curtailed/abolished it after avoidance (including business relocation)
  • resulting in a shift toward largely taxing interests tied to real estate
  • the video argues high burdens and adjustments suggest revenues may not materialize when avoidance increases

Avoidance and valuation complexity

The video argues wealth taxes depend on:

• defining “wealth” accurately and comprehensively
• valuing it reliably

It lists categories that complicate valuation:

• private assets
• financial holdings
• business assets
• real estate
• and other hard-to-value items

It also argues:

• loopholes and legal structures (e.g., holding companies) would reduce effectiveness
• enforcement would be error-prone and costly in a modern economy, including:
  • cross-border issues
  • digital and internet-linked activities

Administrative/compliance cost argument

The video claims the tax would require substantial administrative and compliance infrastructure, including:

• compliance costs for taxpayers and advisors
• administrative staffing for the tax authorities

It argues these costs would significantly reduce the tax’s net benefit, and questions who would ultimately bear these burdens—suggesting redistribution could flow largely to tax-advisory and administration services rather than public needs.

Overall conclusion

The video concludes that, given Germany’s current economic situation, reintroducing a wealth tax is the wrong approach.

It suggests instead that tax burdens—especially on business investment—should be reduced to improve incentives for:

• growth
• innovation
• jobs

Presenters / contributors

• highperformer.henning (referenced as the reacting target)
• Reiner Holznagel (President of the Federation of Taxpayers; quoted)
• Jens Beusen Hogrwe (named as having IMF experience; contributor/expert reference)
• Institut der deutschen Wirtschaft (IW) (cited study; institution)
• ifo Institute (cited study; institution)
• FT Germany (referenced as the source of some arguments)
• Markus (mentioned in the subtitle as part of a party/program discussion; not clearly identified as a specific person)