A trillion reasons to tax the super-rich

 A world where one person can amass a trillion-dollar fortune while billions live in poverty is a world in need of a wealth tax.

Anthony Kamande

---

IF your net wealth is $1,000, it’ll take you about 17 minutes to count it; a little over a day if it’s $100,000; and 12 days if it’s $1 million. It would take Elon Musk, the first-ever dollar trillionaire, more than 38,000 years non-stop to count all of his more than $1,200,000,000,000 wealth (his net wealth as of 12 June 2026). His wealth rose by more than $400 billion in just a few hours on 12 June 2026.

To contextualise this further, Musk is now $300 billion wealthier than 3.8 billion people in the world. If he were a country and his wealth were the GDP, the one-person Republic of Musk would be the 20th-largest economy in the world. If he were to spend $1 million per day, it would take him more than 3,280 years to exhaust his wealth. One of my friends said that for him losing $10 in one night would be a disaster. Feels like a joke, but not for billions of people.

In 2024, my colleagues and I at the aid organisation Oxfam projected that we would see the first trillionaire in a decade. We did not think it would happen quite as fast, but it’s no surprise to those of us who have been following and speaking about the dangerous inequality explosion.

Since the turn of this decade, we have seen a massive concentration of wealth at the top. In nominal terms (i.e., not adjusted for inflation), the world’s billionaires’ wealth is now 2.5 times higher than at the start of 2020, having grown from $8 trillion to more than $20.1 trillion as of 12 June 2026, according to data from the Forbes billionaires list.

Just imagine what such wealth in the hands of a few people can do to the world. For a start, it can buy influence and political power. Politicians will do your bidding, and government policies can easily be used to appease you. The media – even if not under your full ownership and control (although much of it may be) – will be paying attention to every word you say, and the world will be keenly following it. That could mean influencing an election in some distant land, sowing division and deciding what people talk about and how. These are not hypothetical examples: seven of the top 10 biggest media companies in the world are owned by billionaires.

No person should have such a massive amount of wealth – it’s too corrosive. Too dangerous.

Trillionaires and extreme poverty in the same world

Even as we get the first dollar trillionaire, the rest of the world is suffering. Globally, nearly 3.8 billion people are living in poverty, 2.3 billion lack enough food, and 3 billion people are facing a housing crisis. And governments are dealing with bankruptcies.

The ongoing war in the Middle East and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz have sent food and energy prices soaring, hitting workers and poor people, especially in the world’s poorest countries, the most. Extreme hunger and poverty are expected to rise.

While this is happening, the stock market has hit a record high, further cementing the wealth of the richest. It’s the irony of the world we are living in: too much suffering and too much pain for the majority and too much wealth for a few.

This massive accumulation of wealth is due to bad policies by governments, especially the powerful ones. Mega-corporations and their wealthiest owners have enjoyed lower taxes, and benefited from deregulation and government subsidies. Musk himself is a big beneficiary of the American taxpayers. This has enabled him to build his empire.

Oxfam’s research shows that about 60% of billionaires’ money is not merited. It has been gained through cronyism, monopoly and inheritance – these are takers, not makers.

It’s a free market for the rest of us and a welfare state for the richest. Nobody should lie to you that billionaires are the most hardworking, most innovative people in the world.

It’s time to tax the super-rich

Tackling wealth accumulation and investing in the common good, like healthcare and decent, affordable housing, is what governments should be doing. It requires decisiveness and bold policy.

A permanent wealth tax on the super-rich can help keep inequality in check, especially if it is designed in a progressive way where the rates paid by billionaires and trillionaires are far higher than for those that are ‘merely’ multi-millionaires or centi-millionaires. A much higher rate of tax would be needed to actually reduce inequality – the economist Thomas Piketty has recommended a permanent tax on billionaires of 20%.

The money generated from such a tax could mean a lot to billions of people and governments. Just as a thought experiment, a one-off 10% tax on Musk’s $1.2 trillion would raise $120 billion – enough to end extreme poverty in the world for a year. He would still be a trillionaire.

Any wealth tax should be accompanied by other measures, such as regulations to break up monopolies and oligopolies that hinder fair competition and exploit consumers, and stronger protections for workers’ rights.

Finally, governments must set clear timebound targets to rapidly reduce inequality and monitor progress. They should aim for a Palma ratio of 1 or below – this means the top 10% would not earn more than the bottom 40%. That means that, on average, a person in the richest 10% will still be four times richer than someone in the bottom 40 percent. Far from perfect equality, but much better than today, where the richest 10% can be five or 10 times richer than the bottom 40 percent.

The world cannot afford trillionaires, or indeed billionaires, while the majority of people sleep hungry and tens of millions die from preventable diseases. Governments need to take bold action. And we citizens must demand they do the right thing.                               

Anthony Kamande is Inequality Research and Policy Advisor at Oxfam International. This article is reproduced from Equals.

---

UN talks see divergences over taxing high-net-worth individuals

Taxation of the ultra-wealthy was a thorny issue during the most recent round of negotiations for the UN tax convention.

Maria Syed

THE first negotiating session for discussing Article 6 – on high-net-worth individuals or HNWIs – of the proposed UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation saw strong divergences between developing and developed countries over the article’s scope, strength of commitments, and definitions.

Developing countries largely advocated robust, mandatory language and clear operational mechanisms, while many developed nations preferred a more flexible, cooperative approach emphasising national sovereignty and avoiding duplication of existing standards.

The UN Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) in its fifth meeting (3–13 August) worked on the ‘zero draft’ of the Framework Convention, i.e., the initial text put together from a series of informal meetings (mostly conducted online) over several months. Presided over by the Co-Lead of Workstream I on the Framework Convention, Daniel Atwere Nuer (Ghana) who is also INC Vice-Chair, the session on Article 6 asked Parties to share their views on the text of the article, which aims to address challenges posed by HNWIs in international taxation, including issues of tax evasion and avoidance, and calls for cooperation among countries.

(The INC has three workstreams: one each on the core instrument, i.e., the Framework Convention, and on two accompanying Protocols on taxation of income from cross-border services and on the prevention and resolution of tax disputes.)

At the start of the session, the Africa Group of countries, supported by several other developing countries, expressed strong criticism, stating that the current text was ‘watered down’ from what had been submitted by the Group in the informal sessions. They called for a Party-driven process to ensure concrete outcomes, stressing the need for mandatory obligations for countries to ‘develop and implement measures’ to address HNWI taxation, rather than merely ‘cooperating to enhance’ efforts. They also sought clear definitions and specific mechanisms for information exchange.

In contrast, the European countries and others such as the United Arab Emirates and Japan advocated for a scope that focuses on sharing knowledge, capacity and best practices. They preferred a flexible framework that respects national tax sovereignty and relies on established international standards, cautioning against rigid definitions or mandatory minimum provisions that might not suit countries at varying levels of national development.

Many developing countries, however, stressed that there is a significant gap in tax revenue from HNWIs and that this is part of the currently fragmented global tax landscape that needs to be addressed by the Framework Convention.

Throughout the INC session, civil society interventions, especially by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, stressed that there are in fact no truly international standards on many crucial aspects of taxation, and this is precisely why the Framework Convention is needed – to build ‘an inclusive, fair, transparent, efficient, equitable and effective international tax system for sustainable development’ as mandated by the UN General Assembly.

The Africa Group, represented by Zambia, and supported by Nigeria, Kenya, South Africa, Ghana, Burkina Faso and Morocco, proposed changes to paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 6.

Paragraph 1 currently reads: ‘States Parties shall cooperate to enhance measures to detect, deter and prevent tax avoidance and evasion by high‑net‑worth individuals.’ More proactive and mandatory language was proposed, replacing ‘shall cooperate to enhance’ with ‘shall develop and implement’.

Paragraph 2 reads: ‘The States Parties shall share general information regarding structures and techniques used by high-net-worth individuals to avoid and evade taxes.’ The change urged was to delete the word ‘general’ before ‘information’ to ensure that the exchange of information is not limited to basic data but includes actionable, taxpayer-specific data for combating tax evasion.

Paragraph 3 reads: ‘The States Parties shall explore coordinated approaches to ensuring effective taxation of high-net-worth individuals while respecting each State Party’s sovereign right to determine the design, structure and level of taxation within its national tax system.’ The proposed change required the term ‘explore’ to be replaced with ‘adopt’, and called for deletion of the final clause on tax sovereignty, given that tax sovereignty is already adequately covered under Article 2 of the Convention. (Tax sovereignty in this context would have meant the flexibility to not have a tax on HNWIs.) 

Several Parties from the Asia-Pacific region also articulated their positions on Article 6. India requested a clear and objective definition for HNWIs, proposing its inclusion either directly in Article 6 or within Article 3 (on definitions). Like the Africa Group, it proposed amending the language in paragraph 1 from ‘cooperate to enhance’ to ‘develop and implement’, and demanded the deletion of ‘general’ in paragraph 2.

Pakistan supported India and the Africa Group in advocating stronger language on ‘develop and implement’, removal of ‘general’ from paragraph 2, and deleting redundant sovereignty clauses in paragraph 3.

The Philippines and Papua New Guinea called for defining HNWIs in Article 3 and recommended moving paragraph 3 to the beginning of Article 6 as the main statement of intent to emphasise coordinated approaches.

Indonesia echoed calls to delete ‘general’ in paragraph 2 and remove repeated sovereignty mentions in paragraph 3, while also requesting clear, objective criteria (such as wealth, income or assets) for the HNWI definition.

Singapore proposed referencing applicable existing tax agreements in paragraph 2 to build upon established exchange mechanisms, and suggested deferring HNWI definitions to future specific protocols rather than imposing a rigid definition immediately.

The UAE and Japan supported focusing Article 6 on sharing knowledge, capacity and best practices rather than establishing rigid definitions or mandatory minimum levels of taxation.

China stressed that exchange of information must strictly comply with domestic and international legal norms, noting that coordinated approaches might not suit varying national development levels.

The Republic of Korea welcomed the shift to ‘cooperate to enhance’ in paragraph 1 and supported explicitly respecting national tax sovereignty as outlined in the current text.

From the Latin American and Caribbean region, Brazil aligned with India and the Africa Group, proposing to replace ‘shall cooperate to enhance’ with ‘shall develop and implement’ in paragraph 1. It further requested the deletion of ‘general’ in paragraph 2 and urged the removal of the sovereignty reference in paragraph 3 to preserve its operational force.

Jamaica suggested restructuring Article 6 and emphasised the necessity of clearly distinguishing between legal tax avoidance and illegal tax evasion.

Honduras strongly backed Article 6, deeming it vital for developing nations and pushing for strong commitments (‘develop and implement’), the deletion of ‘general’ in paragraph 2, the establishment of a common HNWI definition, and the removal of the repetitive sovereignty clause in paragraph 3.

Mexico offered a middle-ground formulation for paragraph 1: ‘shall cooperate to support the development, enhancement, and implementation of measures’. It agreed with the call to delete ‘general’ in paragraph 2, focusing instead on exchanging systemic national practices.

Among the European countries, Switzerland supported the text on ‘cooperate to enhance’ in paragraph 1, and stated that information exchange should rely on established international standards.

Spain supported Article 6 and proposed adding the word ‘progressive’ to paragraph 3 to ensure progressive taxation of HNWIs.

Belgium, supported by Germany, Estonia, Austria, Czechia, France, Poland and Ireland, argued that tax sovereignty is a cross-cutting principle applicable to the entire Convention and proposed its placement in a dedicated standalone horizontal article rather than being repeated specifically in Article 6.

Czechia suggested changing ‘shall share’ in paragraph 2 to ‘shall cooperate to share’, and sought legal clarity on where HNWIs would be defined within the Convention framework.

Norway supported a flexible framework centred on the exchange of experiences and best practices regarding HNWI tax avoidance structures, rather than rigid operational details or specific definitions.

The deliberations on Article 6 underscored the deep divide between nations seeking strong, binding commitments for enhanced tax cooperation and those advocating for a more flexible approach respecting national discretion, which effectively includes the choice of not taxing HNWIs.

While many urge stronger, proactive language to ‘develop and implement’ measures against tax evasion, others prefer a more collaborative ‘cooperate to enhance’ approach. Significant debate also centres on the scope of information exchange, i.e., whether it should be specific and actionable or more general, and on the necessity of a precise definition for HNWIs. Underlying these discussions is the persistent tension around national tax sovereignty, with proposals for a unified, horizontal article rather than repeated clauses, reflecting the challenge of balancing global coordination with national autonomy.                                 

Maria Syed is a development economist from Pakistan specialising in international macroeconomics, feminist economics and global governance. Based in Berlin, she works as an economics consultant, researcher and policy advocate with the Third World Network, with the main focus on the international financial architecture.

*Third World Resurgence No. 368, 2026/3, pp 22-25