Despite past failures, growing public support and recent international initiatives offer Copenhagen an opportunity to push for wealth taxation.
A recently released progress report from the Polish EU Presidency’s final meeting with the 27 EU Finance Ministers paints a sobering picture. Despite six months of dedicated effort, the Polish EU Presidency, which concluded at the beginning of July, failed to secure a consensus on any new common tax. The only notable movement was a possible extension of the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) to additional sectors, a measure that is more a shift in burden than genuine progress.
Extending the CBAM would compel companies from non-EU countries, including low-income nations such as Zimbabwe or Mozambique, to contribute to repaying the EU’s Next Generation EU (NGEU) debt. These costs could also be passed on to European consumers. While less visible than a direct tax, this approach disproportionately affects those least able to afford it.
Meanwhile, a consensus on a tax on extreme wealth, particularly as a source for new EU resources, remains elusive. The primary objection cited is that it would infringe upon national sovereignty. This presents a paradox: invoking sovereignty while allowing the ultra-rich to evade taxes is not true sovereignty; it is surrender. Sovereignty implies the power to act, and governments could and should act, both individually and collectively, to ensure that the wealthiest contribute at least as much as ordinary citizens.
Clear evidence now shows that billionaires and centi-millionaires—individuals with a wealth of $100 million or more—pay proportionally less tax than ordinary people. Furthermore, in most cases, their lifestyles and investment patterns contribute disproportionately to the climate crisis. To safeguard national competence on taxation, an EU agreement could focus on a set of common principles for such a tax, allowing national authorities flexibility in implementation, similar to the temporary solidarity contribution levied on the fossil fuel industry’s profits.
Member states have also cited “technical difficulties” as a reason to delay a wealth tax, but this argument is unconvincing. Several concrete and feasible steps could be taken immediately to mitigate these supposed obstacles.
For instance, EU governments could harmonise exit taxes to prevent ultra-wealthy individuals from relocating for tax purposes. A European register of land and real estate ownership would enhance transparency, while improved cross-border data exchange would strengthen enforcement. Member states could also publish annual distributional accounts of income and wealth, based on World Inequality Database guidelines, to produce more comparable statistics. National tax authorities could collaborate with academic researchers to analyse anonymised wealth data, informing smarter policymaking. Finally, a self-reporting requirement for those with over $100 million in assets—akin to country-by-country reporting for multinationals—would provide much-needed oversight.
None of these steps requires a revolution in tax administration; only political will. Until movement is seen on any of these fronts, it is difficult to take the “technical difficulties” argument seriously.
In recent months, civil society organisations and trade unions have twice urged EU governments to agree on bold tax reforms that could fund the green and social transition, including an EU-level coordinated tax on extreme wealth. This is a timely proposal. Europe is warming twice as fast as the global average, yet it is falling short on both sustainable development and international climate finance pledges.
Concurrently, support for taxing the super-rich is growing. A new poll by Greenpeace and Oxfam across 13 countries—including France, Germany, Italy, and Spain—reveals that 77 percent of people would be more likely to support a political candidate who prioritises taxing the wealthy and the fossil fuel industry. Even among millionaires in G20 countries, three-quarters support higher taxes on wealth, and over half believe extreme wealth is now a “threat to democracy”.
The groundwork for effective taxation of the super-rich is clear: coordinated action is essential. The Danish EU Presidency has an opportunity to lead, not just in principle, but on practical next steps. Its EU Presidency programme already highlights the importance of strengthening administrative cooperation. This opens the door to progress, particularly through an update to the EU Directive on Administrative Cooperation (DAC), which governs tax-related information exchange.
The case for taxing extreme wealth has never been stronger. Europe faces converging crises: rising inequality, climate collapse, democratic erosion, and austerity-driven public underinvestment. Governments urgently need funding to ease the cost of living, build resilient public services, and invest in a liveable future.
This is about more than just revenue. It is about fairness, sovereignty, and restoring trust. Governments must invest in healthcare, education, housing, public transport, and a just climate transition. This requires new, sustainable sources of funding, and taxing the ultra-wealthy must be part of the solution.
Just a week ago, Spain and Brazil demonstrated leadership by launching a platform for action to tax the super-rich during the Financing for Development conference in Seville. The EU now has a chance to join this initiative. The ball is in the EU Presidency’s court. Denmark, can you score?
Isabelle Brachet
Isabelle Brachet leads the work of Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe on the reform of EU economic governance and a socially just transition. Previously, she was EU advocacy adviser for ActionAid International and worked for 15 years for the International Federation for Human Rights.
No comments:
Post a Comment