Editorial Analysis
Silver Bullet Politics
By William Collinson
July 26, 2026
17 min read
Image: bloomberg.com
Populist politics insists on the simplicity of things. If one single issue is dealt with decisively, living standards will improve, the economy will boom, and society will flourish. The populist right, Reform UK, suggests the silver bullet for solving Britain's woes is stemming immigration and boosting deportations. The populist left, represented in the UK by Zack Polanski’s Green Party, map out a separate vision; that to fix Britain, we must simply 'tax the rich'. The latter example is certainly more valid, yet both are overly vague, simplistic, and founded in resentment. Silver bullets are a useful, simple message for opposition parties to repeat. In government, however, it becomes clear there is never one single issue that needs solving that will ‘fix Britain’.
The Greens have latched on to the slogan of ‘tax the rich’, and increasingly wealth taxes have come into the political conversation in Westminster. Indeed, Labour appears to be angling towards reform of the tax system, shifting the onus from the taxation of income to the taxation of wealth. This is fraught with difficulty, and is something the emerging Andy Burnham government must get right if this path is chosen. A wealth tax is not a silver bullet. The Greens frequently mislead the public when this is suggested. Yet the introduction of a wealth tax, ideally a levy targeted on the super-wealthy, seems more likely now than it has in decades. While no panacea exists in government – although they are plentiful in opposition - a wealth tax is perhaps the best tool this new Labour government has at its disposal to buttress government finances, reform the tax system and reduce wealth inequality. What could this look like, and will Burnham use his present political capital to introduce such reforms?
A Modern Gilded Age?
Aside from current political affairs in the UK, there is wider historical precedent to this challenge of wealth inequality facing modern civilisation. The image is not pretty. Since the 1980s, income and wealth inequality in the UK has increased significantly. In the UK, the richest 10% of households hold 43% of the wealth, while the poorest 50% hold just 9%. Indeed, the wealthiest 200 UK families in 1989 owned 5% of GDP; they now own 20%. Wealth is assessed by the value of everything owned by an individual, including financial and non-financial assets, net of debts and, in the large part for the super-rich, shares in companies listed on the stock market. This trend in the UK reflects a wider trend in modern civilisation: the global richest 0.01% held 11% of global wealth by 2021. Under the current system in the UK, taxing income is favoured over taxing wealth. Thus, super-rich individuals who annually see vast increases in their wealth, while their taxable income remains low, pay a low effective tax rate relative to their growing wealth. Such untaxable, until sold, increases in wealth include economic gains from business ownership, unrealised capital gains and appreciating assets. This inequality in the tax system, when contrasted with rising wealth inequality and a persistent cost of living crisis, paints a deeply unjust scene.
From this stems the argument that democracy is largely incompatible with the current economic trajectory modern civilisation is on, the vast wealth accumulated by an oligarchic class above the wider population. With vast wealth comes great power. With this power, however, in our current system, comes no responsibility to society. In the US, there is a growing oligarchic ruling class with the power to protect their own financial interests and promote their political aims, as exemplified by Elon Musk, to the detriment of the ordinary citizen. Seemingly, this is set to be the great struggle of the 21st century: the conflict between oligarchic forces currently in the ascendancy and democratic forces represented by elected states globally.
Robin Hood Politics
Seemingly, the important distinction when discussing the prospect of a wealth tax is between principle and reality. Will the proposed tax substantially bolster government finances, or will the impact on the exchequer be negligible? Would such proposals still find widespread backing if it became clear that relatively minimal funds would be raised, becoming instead a moral and principled question about the level of wealth inequality that remains compatible with a well-functioning democratic society?
Taxing extreme wealth is a uniquely popular proposal. Simply put, taxation is unpopular. The search for the politician who will ‘lower your taxes and raise everyone else's’, goes on in vain. Enter, Count Binface. Yet polling carried out in May 2026 suggests a 2% wealth tax on net assets worth more than £10 million would be backed by 76% of UK citizens, suggesting this is a fiscal lever that could be pulled to popular support, a rare thing indeed (YouGov). Perhaps this fresh Labour government, economically to the left and in need of funds to support Burnham’s ambitious economic proposals, could explore such a proposal. Indeed, Burnham has shown a tendency to back popular proposals that, in practice, are less effective than they appear; an idealised, nostalgic and largely unworkable programme of re-industrialisation comes to mind. Yet, wealth taxes come in many forms. There are multiple aspects of said wealth tax that a UK government must perfect. The potential tax must not impact successful ordinary people; it must raise sufficient funds to ensure the endeavour is a viable route for the Treasury, and it must begin to address the principle and moral issue of vast wealth inequality plaguing modern civilisation.
What Could a Wealth Tax Look Like?
As we have seen, taxing vast wealth is highly popular. Yet once you get into the details of policy, nuance becomes more important than simplistic rhetoric typified by the most recent example in British politics, Polanski’s ‘tax the rich’. What group does this target? Specifics are often glossed over by the Greens. Where does the problem of wealth inequality lie? The answer, largely, is in the small number of the super-wealthy, not successful professionals, the middle to upper-middle class, or, simply put, financially successful ordinary people. The problem lies in a small group of households that are so wealthy they, in certain senses, can live in a parallel world to the rest of the population. Upon making their fortune, many such families shrink from their responsibilities in society, and pay the tiniest fraction of their wealth in taxes. As mentioned above, the top 200 wealthiest families in the UK (wealthiest 0.001%) collectively own the equivalent of 25% of UK GDP. ¼ of the GDP of one of the wealthiest nations on Earth. So often, the wealth of such individuals is held offshore, in places such as the Cayman Islands, lessening government revenue and shifting the tax burden onto others who have less ability to pay. Indeed, comparing the 2026 Sunday Times Rich List highlighted that none of the Uk's 10 biggest taxpayers ranked amongst the UK's 10 wealthiest individuals.
Gabriel Zucman, a French economist, has developed the 'Zucman Tax', a wealth tax focused on this specific issue. A simple proposal that Zucman claims sidesteps all the issues that have plagued wealth taxes in the past; simply put, extreme wealth must come with unavoidable duties to society. There must be a minimum tax that must be paid annually if you surpass a specific threshold of wealth, such as £87 million. Configuring this total based on income does not work; super-rich can simply not pay themselves a wage and thus avoid a significant income tax. This would be configured through a fraction of an individual's wealth. The super-rich would be forced to pay a minimum effective tax rate annually, relative to their wealth. Specifically, Zucman proposes that those with a net wealth of more than £87 million must pay at least 2% of their net wealth per annum, raising approximately 0.5% of GDP, a £15 billion per annum boost to public finances. This would, alongside bolstering government finances, avoid taxation on ordinary citizens' wealth; pensions, investments, property and wider asset holdings below the threshold for extreme wealth will be unaffected. Equally, taxation for those above the threshold who annually pay equal to 2% of their wealth would find their taxation unchanged.
Fixing this anomaly in our tax system is a point of principle, regardless of whether this would constitute a massive shift. Yet Zucman works with a series of assumptions that make his proposal valid. These questions must be confidently answered if a wealth tax on the super-rich is to be effective. Firstly, there is the issue of migration. It is often suggested that if said super-rich families were taxed to a greater extent, they would simply leave the country to escape such obligations. This is certainly a feature of past wealth taxes, with Swedish and French attempts at wealth taxes scrapped by respective governments due to inefficiency and capital flight. Zucman proposes to deal with this issue by introducing an ‘anti-flight shield’ to ensure that the super-rich – a group that tends to be incredibly internationally mobile – cannot shirk their financial responsibilities to society by fleeing the country. This constitutes both international co-ordination and a tough stance on assets left behind by the super-rich who have left.
Image: lemonde.fr
Zucman's Obstacles
Zucman argues that if multiple major economies adopt a similar 2% minimum tax above said threshold, there would be no ‘safe-havens’ for billionaires to transfer all their wealth to. This is a valid argument, yet it is simply unrealistic and unworkable. This chimes with the key debate within socialism in the 20th century, whether socialism in one country can work, or whether international socialism - the coined ‘permanent revolution ’- was the only way forward. Even if multiple advanced nations adopt this strategy, there will always remain tax havens to which the super-wealthy cannot be stopped from going, such as the Cayman Islands, or, specifically regarding business rates, Ireland. If a tax system is only going to work if coordinated and imposed internationally, something that is nigh on impossible as all nations have distinct budgetary contexts or attitudes on being seen as business-friendly, for example, it will simply not work. Zucman claims this problem is man-made. This is true, but just because something is man-made does not mean it can be swept aside with ease. What is stopping any nation's government deciding it should become the home of the super wealthy? Fiscal policy simply cannot be imposed internationally.
A further caveat of the Zucman tax is its proposed approach to tackling the issue of capital flight. This aspect of the theory has been included to supposedly solve the issues mentioned above regarding a uniform international wealth tax effort. This aspect of Zucman’s proposal is flawed, damaging his theory to an extent. To discourage the super-wealthy from leaving once this minimum 2% annual wealth tax is imposed, Zucman proposes the state threaten to use the tools at its disposal to ensure the finances required by the tax are paid. Once a member of the super-rich has left the UK, the state continues taxing them for several years after they have left. They retain the status of a tax resident of the UK for say, 10 years. This would ensure that there exists no incentive for out-migration; taxes would remain at 2% of wealth above the stated threshold regardless of whether they live in London, Monaco or Dubai, therefore meaning there would be no incentive to migrate.
If there is refusal to pay, the newly founded law would be broken, in turn leading to a court case and, subsequently, asset seizure. If this works, any nation can unilaterally impose this law. This is built around the somewhat accurate assumption that when the super-rich migrate, they usually retain numerous assets in their country of origin, due to a desire to remain internationally mobile and to retain valuable social or business networks. This, Zucman suggests, is useful leverage that governments of wealthy states such as the UK possess. Yet this would certainly be difficult to enforce. Firstly, it is difficult to assess how much wealth an individual holds. Secondly, the prospect of being hounded for a decade-plus over new taxation is certainly not a business-friendly strategy, strengthening the argument against such wealth taxes that they are anti-growth and anti-investment. The proposal to continue taxation of the super-rich who have migrated out of the nation would incur significant legal challenges, adding a further complication to the proposal. Seemingly, the Zucman tax is not perfected. Yet it has helped reignite a debate that has not been seriously considered in British politics since the 1970s.
When considering the implementation of a new tax system, there are a multitude of factors to consider: the potential yield, administrative costs, equity and the tax’s economic efficiency. The enforcement of Zucman’s conditions set up to combat migration must be able to withstand legal challenges and asset seizures through the courts – a proposal that places further strain on the courts – for this proposal to work. Equally, the administration of the tax must prove affordable and relatively simple. A clear system must be established regarding how wealth is tallied up. Indeed, Zucman suggests that this is something that individuals must not be allowed to perform themselves, preferring an independent body to value the wealth of such individuals, combatting avoidance yet furthering the administrative costs. Despite all these challenges, the Zucman tax certainly raises an important fiscal debate. How much further can this wealth divide go before our society reaches a position of plutocratic collapse?
The Principle of the Thing
This prospect of the Zucman tax is no silver bullet. The Green Party exhibits growing pains by suggesting such a tax is. The supposed £15 billion received by this taxation – regardless of the positive effect it will have on wealth inequality – is a substantial sum, yet it will not be transformative. The budget deficit in the financial year 2024/25 was a whopping £153 billion, showing that this tax would be welcomed, but would far from solve crises in Britain’s public services, defence spending or NHS, for example.
Robin Hood politics has always been popular. In a simplified sense, to take from the rich and give to the poor exemplifies a welfare state, and is underwritten by a deeply popular and just concept of wider income and wealth redistribution. The Zucman tax that has animated French politics of late is an example of this and is motivated by good intentions, yet its effectiveness must be called into question. The wealth inequalities present in our modern society, specifically regarding the astronomically wealthy, are shocking and frankly disgusting. This tax, if implemented, would solely be a step in the right direction, and only one that should be taken if it is proven economically efficient - shorthand for whether a tax will substantially distort economic behaviour - with workable administrative effort and costs. Principle or reality? Considering the implementation of the Zucman tax, they must not be mutually exclusive. A positive eventuality on both fronts must be met.
The fresh Burnham government in the UK at present has spades of political capital. This would be dearly needed to implement a tax of this kind. Much of the discourse around Burnham’s first week in office has been around how he is proposing to pay for his various initiatives; perhaps to find the answer, he simply must look south across the English Channel. Do not wait with bated breath. A tax of this kind must be proven to withstand avoidance, to be administratively simple and cost-effective, and to be economically efficient. Furthermore, any proposal regarding a wealth tax from Burnham should be narrowly targeted at the ultra-wealthy, tiny sliver of society, rather than, say, the wealthiest 20%. Now may not be the moment. Yet Zucman has helped substantiate the case for challenging widening wealth inequality with concrete proposals, rather than hollow and simplistic soundbites.
Oligarchy is largely incompatible with a well-functioning democracy. Time and again over history, we have seen plutocratic collapse once wealth inequality becomes unsustainable. States must reduce this drastic wealth inequality, or risk being washed away in a tide of social unrest inevitable in all civilisations when wealth and power are increasingly concentrated in the hands of the few. This, thankfully, is a long time away yet. However, the potentially catastrophic implications of our ever-growing wealth inequality must be confronted. How are democratic governments to rise to this challenge? Perhaps Zucman has built the theory behind part of a required progressive solution. There, as always in mature politics, remains more to do.
References
Zucman, Gabriel, We Need to Tax Billionaires, (Basic Books: October 2025).