Switzerland has taxed personal wealth for more than a century, yet the country has also seen its number of wealthy residents rise. According to former Treasury Department policy adviser Warren Gorlick, the number of adults with $5 million to $10 million in assets grew 7.4 percent a year from 2000 to 2025. His argument, made in a recent Washington Post op-ed, is that the Swiss model shows a wealth tax can coexist with wealth creation when the rate is low.
The key, Gorlick said, is the rate itself. Each Swiss canton sets its own wealth tax, and even the highest rates are modest compared with proposals under debate in the United States. In Zurich, a married couple with $2.5 million in net worth pays an effective rate of 0.24 percent, or roughly $6,000 a year. Someone with $1 billion in net worth faces an effective rate of 0.7 percent, or about $7 million annually.
The contrast with the United States is sharp. California's Proposition 40 ballot initiative would require residents worth more than $1 billion to pay a one-time tax equal to 5 percent of their assets. Polls show the measure is a close call, and it has already prompted some of the state's wealthy to leave. Google cofounder Sergey Brin has relocated to Nevada and contributed more than $100 million toward opposing the billionaire tax. Uber cofounder Travis Kalanick confirmed he has left California for Texas.
Supporters of Proposition 40 point to the artificial intelligence boom and argue that California's ultra-rich would remain among the world's wealthiest even after paying the levy. Opponents counter that the tax is unlikely to remain a one-time charge and warn that some startup founders could be forced to sell controlling stakes in their companies to cover the bill, given how the measure values assets.
The debate extends beyond the ballot box. California Governor Gavin Newsom opposes Proposition 40 but supports a nationwide wealth tax, and many observers expect him to become a presidential candidate. Senator Elizabeth Warren has proposed a 2 percent tax on wealth above $50 million and 3 percent above $1 billion. Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Ro Khanna have introduced legislation for a 5 percent tax on billionaires. United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby has also said the United States should adopt a national wealth tax.
Gorlick cautioned that not all wealth generates regular income. A 5 percent tax on $1 billion in assets would produce a $50 million annual bill, which could force owners to sell holdings to pay it. "Few people will muster much sympathy for a billionaire's tax problem, but a wealth tax that assumes capital can be taxed indefinitely at a high rate is a wealth tax that ultimately won't be paid, because the wealth — or its owner — will simply be gone," he wrote.
Instead of the Warren proposal, Gorlick argued the United States should consider a Swiss-style approach. A hypothetical top levy of 0.5 percent on $1 billion in assets would mean a $5 million yearly payment to the IRS, a sum he doubts would drive billionaires abroad. Applying a 0.5 percent rate to the richest 1 percent of U.S. households could generate about $200 billion a year, he estimated.
That figure is small against U.S. debt of roughly $40 trillion and the $7.4 trillion the federal government spent in fiscal 2026. Still, Gorlick said a wealth tax could raise significant revenue without raising income taxes, at a time when Washington plans to increase defense spending and the Social Security retirement trust fund faces insolvency in six years. "A modest wealth tax won't, by itself, solve America's $2 trillion annual deficit," he acknowledged. "But it would be a meaningful down payment toward addressing America's fiscal imbalance — one that both sides could get behind."