#HeidiReichinnek #BuildingAFuture
If DIE LINKE were to fully implement its proposals, would it ultimately realize Piketty’s ideal of wealth and inheritance taxation, and where would clear differences remain?
Wealth taxation: Approaching Piketty’s goal, but differences in details
The proposals of DIE LINKE and Piketty are fundamentally in agreement: both aim for a progressive wealth tax, in which large fortunes are taxed much more heavily than small ones. The objective—reducing inequality, strengthening social participation—is also identical.
Differences appear in the specific details: DIE LINKE wants to tax wealth starting from one million euros with increasing rates up to 12% for billionaires. In his work, Piketty proposes rates of 1–2% depending on the amount of wealth, and up to about 5% for very large fortunes. Thus, DIE LINKE—even in its plans for the super-rich—actually goes beyond Piketty’s minimum demand. However, there are differences in the design of allowances and the question of at what wealth level the progression begins. Piketty generally favors lower entry thresholds and seamless access to all assets.
Conclusion: With its program, DIE LINKE would fulfill Piketty’s central goal—a strong redistribution of wealth—on a national level, and in some areas (e.g., for billionaires) would even tax more ambitiously. However, differences exist in allowances, the breadth of the tax base, and details of the progression levels.
Inheritance tax: Shared principle, but deviations in implementation
The basic ideas also coincide for inheritance tax: large inheritances should be taxed more heavily, smaller and medium inheritances less or not at all. Piketty explicitly calls for high tax rates for very large inheritances to prevent dynastic wealth accumulation.
DIE LINKE relies on significantly increased tax rates for large inheritances, lower allowances, and above all on closing loopholes (such as for business assets). In practice, DIE LINKE’s rates for large fortunes could even be higher than in Piketty’s model, provided the tax base is broad and asset shifting is prevented. However, Piketty’s concept is generally more consistent in taxing every form of wealth transfer progressively, regardless of context.
Conclusion: DIE LINKE could largely achieve the goal sought by Piketty. Deviations exist in the design of allowances and possible exceptions, especially if special rules apply to business transfers or certain types of assets.
Societal goal: Agreement on redistribution and equal opportunity
Both approaches pursue a clear idea: without strong taxation of large fortunes and inheritances, social inequality will be cemented in the long run. Both DIE LINKE and Piketty want a fairer society and rely on redistributing existing resources—both to directly reduce the gap between rich and poor and to finance public tasks and promote equal opportunities.
Conclusion: There is complete agreement here: DIE LINKE would fulfill the societal goals desired by Piketty with its program.
Overall result: How close does DIE LINKE come to Piketty?
If DIE LINKE were to implement its program with an absolute majority, Piketty’s core goal—a significant progressive redistribution of wealth and inheritances—would be realized for the most part. In some respects, such as the taxation of very large fortunes, DIE LINKE even goes further. The differences are in the details: Piketty thinks more consistently in terms of comprehensive coverage of all types of assets and relies on as few exceptions and allowances as possible.
In short: Provided DIE LINKE fully implements its tax plans, it would achieve the majority of Piketty’s vision at the national level, with some deviations in details such as allowances, exceptions, and the breadth of the tax base.