Switzerland Taxes Wealth at 0.24% — and Keeps Its Millionaires

By Daniel Okafor

A married couple in Zurich with $2.5 million in net worth pays an effective wealth tax of 0.24% — about $6,000 a year. A billionaire pays 0.7%, or $7 million. Those numbers come from Warren Gorlick, a retired Treasury Department policy adviser, who laid them out in a Washington Post op-ed last week arguing the U.S. should copy the Swiss model.

Switzerland has levied wealth taxes through its cantons for more than a century. It remains the fourth-wealthiest country in the world on a per-capita GDP basis, at $126,177, behind only Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Ireland — and Ireland's figure is inflated by multinationals domiciling there for tax reasons. The Swiss haven't chased off the rich, either: the number of adults holding $5 million to $10 million in assets grew 7.4% annually from 2000 to 2025, according to Gorlick.

The mechanism is simple. Each canton sets its own rate. Even the highest cantonal rates stay modest compared with what U.S. politicians now propose. Low rates, Gorlick argues, keep wealth — and its owners — inside the country.

How steep are the U.S. proposals by comparison?

California's Proposition 40 ballot initiative would impose a one-time tax of 5% of assets on residents worth more than $1 billion. Polls show a close race. The measure has already pushed some wealthy Californians out of the state.

Google cofounder Sergey Brin relocated to Nevada and has contributed more than $100 million to oppose the billionaire tax. Uber cofounder Travis Kalanick confirmed he left California for Texas.

Prop 40 supporters point to the AI boom and argue California's ultra-rich would remain among the world's wealthiest even after paying. Opponents warn the levy is unlikely to stay one-time, and that some startup founders could be forced to sell controlling stakes to cover the bill, depending on how Prop 40 values assets.

Federal proposals run equally steep:

• Sen. Elizabeth Warren has proposed 2% on wealth above $50 million and 3% above $1 billion.
• Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Ro Khanna have introduced legislation for a 5% tax on billionaires.
• California Gov. Gavin Newsom opposes Prop 40 but backs a nationwide wealth tax.
• United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby has said the U.S. should have a national wealth tax.

A group of Nobel laureate economists favoring Prop 40 has said it could "kickstart a movement" that spreads to other states and countries.

Why does Gorlick think high rates fail?

Not all wealth produces regular income. A 5% tax on $1 billion in assets creates a $50 million annual bill, and the owner may have 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," Gorlick wrote.

His alternative: a Swiss-style levy. A hypothetical top rate of 0.5% on $1 billion would cost the taxpayer $5 million a year — a sum he doubts would drive billionaires abroad.

How much money would a 0.5% tax raise?

Applied to the richest 1% of U.S. households, a 0.5% wealth tax could generate roughly $200 billion a year, Gorlick estimated. That is small against U.S. debt of $40 trillion, and against the $7.4 trillion the federal government spent in fiscal 2026.

Still, the revenue would arrive without hiking income taxes. That matters as Washington plans to boost defense spending while the Social Security retirement trust fund faces insolvency within six years.

"A modest wealth tax won't, by itself, solve America's $2 trillion annual deficit," Gorlick admitted. "But it would be a meaningful down payment toward addressing America's fiscal imbalance — one that both sides could get behind."

Even if Prop 40 fails at the ballot, the wealth-tax debate survives it — through Newsom's national ambitions, Warren's Senate proposals and a billionaire exodus that has already begun.