What can Iceland teach us about a wealth tax?
The country instituted an emergency tax for three years to sort out its problems. Should we?
By Margarida Madaleno Published 29 August 2012 15:59
Iceland’s remarkable recovery can serve as a lesson to the UK.
Having recently paid back its IMF loan quicker than was predicted, Iceland's unorthodox reaction to the crisis has been hailed by economists, policy-makers and the IMF itself. In addition to letting its financial system fail, the country introduced capital controls (which have been met with some skepticism as they arguably prevent foreign direct investment and therefore stunt growth) and leveraged its fiscal policy to pay off debt whilst sustaining consumption. It is this last point the UK should pay heed to, particularly as Clegg declares his support for a wealth tax.
The general theme of Iceland’s 2010 tax reform (pdf) is one of increasing tax revenue whilst offsetting the burden for lower income individuals. For instance, while fuel taxes and VAT were increased, the revenue was partially re-channeled towards public transportation and bottom-quartile households compensated for higher food, heating, and transport costs. Furthermore, in an effort to raise income without affecting consumption, the government implemented an emergency wealth tax rate for the period of 2010-2013. As of January 2011, one year after introduction, the tax rate is 1.5 per cent of net capital for single individuals with more than ISK 75,000,000 (£390,000) or 100,000,000 (£519,000) for married couples. By taxing the top 2.2 per cent of the population, the Icelandic government was able to raise 0.3 per cent of GDP in revenue every year.
However, an IMF report on the country's reform argues that the wealth tax should be abandoned as capital controls ease. Because the tax is recurring, the only thing that is stopping the wealthy from offshoring capital is the simple fact that they’re not allowed to. Therefore, IMF economists argue that the revenue from the wealth tax should be replaced by a less mobile base (i.e. real estate and high income). This does not, however, discredit the Icelandic wealth tax as a possibility in the UK; it just means that, as suggested by German scholars, it should be a one-off levy. (For an in-depth assessment of Clegg’s wealth tax go here)
Meanwhile, the biggest lesson the UK can learn from Iceland is that its recovery was at least partially fuelled by the government's struggle against depressed consumption.
Bloomberg's Omar Valdimarsson writes:
Iceland’s growth “is driven by private consumption, investment has picked up strongly and even though, when you look at net exports, those have a negative contribution to growth, it is mainly because imports have been strong, reflecting strong consumption and an increase in income and the healthy expectations of households,” Zakharova said. “Still, exports have been increasing very strongly. Last year was a banner year for tourism. These are all really positive things.”
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Online writers:
- Steven Baxter
- Rowenna Davis
- David Allen Green
- Mehdi Hasan
- Nelson Jones
- Gavin Kelly
- Helen Lewis
- Laurie Penny
- The V Spot
- Alex Hern
- Martha Gill
- Alan White
- Samira Shackle
- Alex Andreou
- Nicky Woolf in America
- Bim Adewunmi
- Glosswitch
- Kate Mossman on pop
- Ryan Gilbey on Film
- Martin Robbins
- Rafael Behr
- Eleanor Margolis
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Advertising
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists





















3 comments
A land value tax as a replacement for taxes on wealth generation (income tax, VAT etc) is the way to go.
Actually, the UK should pay heed to "letting its financial system fail".Had Iceland been as stupid as all the other countries in Europe (and the US), it would be in exactly the same mess as them.
What about the U.S.
I believe Mr. Romney is not afraid of success even if it means getting the political right to embrace the replacement of job killing payroll taxes with an economically sound 2% net wealth tax (directly benefitting the poor and middle class) and getting the political left to embrace the economic investment freedom of an 8% income tax rate (directly benefitting the wealthy) and a small 4% value added tax (VAT) on business. The details of the 2-4-8 Tax Blend tax reform are featured in an article titled “Creating New Wealth by Taxing Net Wealth” on Forbes.com and at TaxNetWealth.com.
If you believe Mr. Romney is open to tax reform that allows the market to create jobs without more government spending and with the mathematically lowest tax rates possible it is worth a look at the 2-4-8 Tax Blend. If you think it is too farfetched for a Mormon, health reformer, business innovator, managerial genius to be associated with a net wealth tax (as Donald Trump supported in 2000) or a value added tax (as Paul Ryan supported in 2010) you may be in for a surprise. At least there is one good reason for the politically left and right to come together for the good of the country – (an objective Mr. Obama has been unable to deliver because of incompetent economic advice).
Eugene Patrick Devany, JD, MPA