EVEN IF NEW TAXES DO NOT DIRECTLY AFFECT YOU (E.G. WEALTH TAX AND TAXES ON FOREIGNERS), IT MOST LIKELY WILL.
Para português clique aqui
Most people do not understand how harmful taxes can be for societies. Not only the group of people being taxed becomes poorer but society as a whole. In this post, I will illustrate this with 2 examples: wealth tax and tax on foreigners (i.e. residents of a foreign country).
Assuming the expected return of an asset (e.g. a 4% bond valued at $100) does not change, the implementation of a 1% wealth tax will decrease the return of the asset by 25% for the people taxed by the wealth tax (Adam et al., 2011). Since the rich are the ones who hold most assets, this will lead them to reallocate part of their bond investments into other assets, depreciating bond prices. Consequently, as the 2013 Nobel Laureate Eugene Fama says, everyone who holds bond assets will pay for the wealth tax.
The same goes for real estate. The rich own a large amount of real estate. If they start paying higher taxes on it every year, they will value the asset less, changing the market equilibrium and leading them to sell part of their real estate assets. In this case, the capital acquired from selling the real estate or bond assets could be used to buy investments that are more difficult to estimate the value (therefore harder to collect wealth taxes on), such as rare paintings, jewelry, famous sculptures, or encourage capital flight. This will increase the supply of real estate in the market, decreasing real estate prices of all real estate owners, even if you do not directly pay the wealth tax. Thus, the whole society will pay for a wealth tax, not only the wealthy. Any other tax on capital would have the same effect. Therefore, in this new market equilibrium, works of art / foreign assets will have higher prices (due to higher demand) and bonds / real estate will have lower prices (due to higher supply). The wealth tax could also lead to many other negative externalities, such as the emigration of highly skilled labor (Kleven et al, 2013) and inefficiencies in the market price mechanism.
Taxes on Foreigners (i.e. residents of foreign countries)
From basic economics, we know that monopolies are not good for society because they can control market prices, leading to inefficient outcomes (i.e. deadweight losses). For example, they can sell products at an absurd high price to increase their revenue at the expense of all consumers, e.g. the US healthcare industry. In other words, if no one can control market prices except the market itself, you could make people financially better off without making other individuals worse off, which is the definition of (Pareto) efficiency. Similarly, some countries are large enough to influence the world price of some goods (Dixit, 1985). Therefore, these major governments can create taxes on imports and exports (i.e. tariffs) to benefit their voters, while making the world as a whole poorer (e.g. Gordon, 1988; Summer, 1988). For example, Saudi Arabia can increase the price of oil to benefits its workers while making the whole world poorer. Along the same lines, countries that are large relative to the world's capital markets can also impose withholding tax on foreign investors or surtax on domestic investors investing abroad (Gordon and Hines, 2002).
However, small economies do not have an influence on world market prices. Consequently, in a small open economy, higher taxes (e.g. withholding tax on stocks and bonds) on foreign investors lead to a decrease in domestic investment. Foreign investors now will prefer to invest elsewhere to not have to pay the withholding tax. Small economies do not have a monopoly nor a large enough to influence the market of a good or service, like the US healthcare or Saudi Arabia on oil. Therefore, to break even domestic firms in small countries must increase the price of their products or decrease their costs. Since prices in a small economy are given by international markets, they must cut costs to offset the higher taxes, like labor salary. In other words, as Nobel Laureates James Mirrlees and Peter Diamond (1971) demonstrate, although the tax is on foreigners, who end up paying the costs of the withholding tax are the domestic workers.