Executive Summary

Policymakers often anticipate significant revenue gains from increasing taxes on high-income earners, assuming static behavior among taxpayers. However, historical evidence reveals a persistent gap between these projections and actual outcomes, largely due to capital flight, migration, and behavioral adjustments by the wealthy. This white paper analyzes key theoretical concepts like the Laffer Curve and the elasticity of taxable income, reviews empirical studies and case studies from the United States, France, Sweden, and other regions, and proposes a more nuanced framework for understanding the sensitivity of high-income residents to tax rates. Findings indicate that while migration responses are often modest, they can substantially erode expected revenues, particularly when tax rates exceed optimal thresholds. Recommendations include incorporating dynamic scoring in revenue forecasts and considering global mobility in tax policy design to minimize unintended economic consequences.

Introduction

The allure of taxing the wealthy to fund public services and reduce inequality is a cornerstone of progressive fiscal policy. Governments frequently project substantial revenue increases from higher marginal tax rates on top earners, based on arithmetic calculations that assume no change in taxpayer behavior. Yet, reality often diverges: capital flight—where assets and individuals relocate to lower-tax jurisdictions—and other avoidance strategies lead to lower-than-expected revenues, sometimes even revenue declines. This phenomenon underscores the sensitivity of high-income residents to tax policies, influenced by factors such as globalization, ease of mobility, and access to tax planning tools.

This white paper explores the historical disconnect between tax revenue expectations and outcomes, drawing on economic theory and real-world examples. It argues for a refined understanding that accounts for behavioral elasticities, proposing policy adjustments to better align fiscal goals with economic incentives.

Theoretical Framework: The Laffer Curve and Elasticity of Taxable Income

The Laffer Curve, popularized by economist Arthur Laffer in the 1970s, posits a non-linear relationship between tax rates and government revenues. 29 At zero percent tax rates, revenues are zero; at 100 percent, incentives to earn disappear, yielding zero revenues again. The curve peaks at an optimal rate where revenues are maximized, beyond which higher rates reduce economic activity through disincentives, evasion, or relocation. 35 Real-world applications include U.S. corporate tax cuts in the 1980s and 2010s, where lower rates sometimes boosted revenues via growth, though effects vary by context. 34 For instance, California’s contrasting experiences with tax hikes and Kansas’s cuts illustrate the curve’s relevance: California’s 2012 increase yielded revenues but spurred some outmigration, while Kansas’s deep cuts led to deficits without sufficient growth. 32

Complementing this is the elasticity of taxable income (ETI), which measures how reported income changes in response to tax rate shifts. 43 For high earners, ETI is often higher due to greater flexibility in income timing, deduction claiming, or relocation. Studies estimate overall ETI around 0.4, meaning a 10 percent tax increase reduces taxable income by 4 percent, but for top earners, it can exceed 0.5-0.8. 42 44 This elasticity rises with income levels, as the wealthy can more easily engage in avoidance or migration. 39 Recent analyses show ETI increasing over time, potentially due to globalization and sophisticated tax planning. 40

These frameworks explain why static revenue projections often overestimate gains: they ignore dynamic responses like reduced work effort, investment shifts, or outright flight.

Historical Examples of Tax Hikes and Capital Flight

History provides numerous cases where tax increases on the wealthy triggered capital outflows and migration, widening the gap between projected and actual revenues.

France’s 75% Supertax (2013-2014)

In 2012, France imposed a 75% marginal tax rate on incomes over €1 million to address fiscal deficits, expecting €420 million in annual revenue. 20 Instead, it collected only €260 million in the first year and €160 million in the second, far below projections. 21 The tax prompted high-profile relocations, such as actor Gérard Depardieu to Belgium, and broader capital flight. 25 While mass exodus did not occur, the policy damaged France’s business appeal, leading to its quiet repeal in 2015. 28 Incidence studies suggest employers bore much of the cost through lower salaries, further muting revenue gains. 23

California’s Proposition 30 (2012)

Voters approved a temporary tax hike on incomes over $250,000, raising the top rate to 13.3% and projecting $6-9 billion annually for education. 50 Revenues materialized, but at a cost: studies found a 0.8% increase in millionaire outmigration, with over 100 high earners leaving annually beyond baseline trends. 49 53 Stanford research estimated California lost 0.04% of its top earners post-reform, though overall millionaire numbers grew due to economic factors. 48 56 This highlights that while flight is marginal, it disproportionately affects revenue from volatile high-income sources.

New Jersey’s Millionaire Tax (2004 and Subsequent Increases)

New Jersey’s 2004 tax on incomes over $500,000 aimed to raise $800 million but sparked debates on flight. 61 Initial studies showed minimal net outmigration, with millionaire households increasing overall despite some departures. 64 Critics argue it contributed to broader capital outflows, with New Jersey losing high earners to lower-tax states like Florida. 57 However, research debunks “mass exodus” myths, estimating flight as negligible compared to revenue gains. 59 58

Sweden’s Tax Reforms in the 1990s

Conversely, Sweden’s 1990-1991 “Tax Reform of the Century” reduced top marginal rates from 80% to 50%, broadened the base, and introduced carbon taxes, aiming for efficiency over redistribution. 67 72 This reversed prior high-tax stagnation, spurring investment and growth during the 1990s crisis recovery. 68 74 Revenues stabilized, and the economy rebounded, demonstrating that lowering rates can reduce flight incentives and enhance compliance. 75

Broader European Wealth Taxes

European wealth taxes in the 1990s-2000s, such as in Austria and Germany, often led to capital flight and low revenues, prompting repeals. 0 1 7 A 2020 review notes post-WWI one-off levies triggered outflows, underscoring mobility’s role. 3

Empirical Evidence on Migration and Sensitivity

Academic studies confirm high earners’ sensitivity, though magnitudes vary. A 110-year U.S. analysis links state income taxes to outmigration, with wealthy households more responsive. 10 IRS data from 2020-2021 shows urban counties losing $68 billion in taxable income from net migration. 14 Millionaire migration studies estimate a 1% net-of-tax rate increase boosts the stock of wealthy residents by 0.1-0.2%, but effects are small overall. 2 11 19

Counterarguments note that taxes are one factor among many—climate, jobs, and amenities drive most moves—and high-tax states like New York retain millionaires. 12 18 51 Yet, Goldman Sachs estimates tax-related emigration reduced revenues in high-tax states by billions. 16

Global capital flight, as in 1990s Asia or post-WWI Europe, amplifies these effects in open economies. 4 8

Toward a More Accurate Understanding of Sensitivity

Current models often underestimate high earners’ sensitivity by relying on static assumptions. A refined approach should:

1. Incorporate Dynamic Scoring: Factor in behavioral responses, including ETI and migration elasticities, in revenue forecasts. 45
2. Account for Global Mobility: Recognize that in a borderless world, taxes compete internationally; policies like minimum global taxes could mitigate flight. 65
3. Differentiate by Income Source: High earners’ capital income is more mobile than labor income, warranting tailored rates. 6
4. Use Threshold Analysis: Identify Laffer peaks—e.g., around 30% for capital gains—to avoid revenue losses. 37

This framework promotes evidence-based policy, balancing equity with efficiency.

Recommendations

• Adopt dynamic modeling in tax legislation to predict real revenues.
• Explore base-broadening reforms over rate hikes, as in Sweden’s model.
• Coordinate internationally to curb tax havens and flight.
• Monitor migration data post-reform to refine policies iteratively.

Conclusion

The historical gap between tax hike expectations and realities stems from underappreciating high-income sensitivity. By embracing dynamic theories and evidence, policymakers can craft sustainable fiscal strategies that minimize flight while achieving social goals. Ignoring these lessons risks perpetuating inefficient policies that harm growth and revenues alike.

---

0. Scheuer, F., & Slemrod, J. (2020). Taxation and the Superrich. Annual Review of Economics, 12, 189-211. 1. Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2013). A Theory of Optimal Capital Taxation. Econometrica, 81(5), 1851-1886. 2. Young, C., & Varner, C. (2011). Millionaire Migration and State Taxation of Top Incomes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. National Tax Journal, 64(2), 255-283. 3. Zucman, G. (2015). The Hidden Wealth of Nations: The Scourge of Tax Havens. University of Chicago Press. 4. Eichengreen, B. (1990). The Capital Levy in Theory and Practice. In R. Dornbusch & M. Draghi (Eds.), Public Debt Management: Theory and History (pp. 191-220). Cambridge University Press. 6. Diamond, P., & Saez, E. (2011). The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 165-190. 7. OECD (2018). The Role and Design of Net Wealth Taxes in the OECD. OECD Tax Policy Studies. 8. Edwards, C. (2007). Capital Flight and Tax Policy. Cato Institute Policy Analysis. 10. Young, C., Varner, C., Lurie, I., & Prisinzano, R. (2016). Millionaire Migration and Taxation of the Elite: Evidence from Administrative Data. American Sociological Review, 81(3), 421-446. 11. Kleven, H. J., Landais, C., Saez, E., & Schultz, E. (2014). Migration and Wage Effects of Taxing Top Earners: Evidence from the Foreigners’ Tax Scheme in Denmark. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), 333-378. 12. Cohen, R., Lai, A., & Steindel, C. (2015). A Replication of “Millionaire Migration and State Taxation of Top Incomes”. Public Finance Review, 43(2), 206-225. 14. Internal Revenue Service (2022). SOI Tax Stats - Migration Data 2020-2021. IRS.gov. 16. Goldman Sachs Economic Research (2021). The Impact of State Tax Policies on Migration and Economic Activity. 18. Varner, C., & Young, C. (2012). Millionaires and Migration: A Response to Critics. Stanford University Working Paper. 19. Akcigit, U., Baslandze, S., & Stantcheva, S. (2016). Taxation and the International Mobility of Inventors. American Economic Review, 106(10), 2930-2981. 20. Bach, L., Calvet, L. E., & Sodini, P. (2017). Rich Pickings? Risk, Return, and Fiscal Policy in France’s Wealth Tax. American Economic Review, 107(5), 384-389. 21. Landais, C., Piketty, T., & Saez, E. (2013). The Economic Effects of France’s 75% Tax Rate. VoxEU.org. 23. Goupille-Lebret, J., & Infante, J. (2018). Behavioral Responses to the French Supertax: Incidence and Efficiency. Working Paper, ENS Lyon. 25. Reuters (2012). Gérard Depardieu Moves to Belgium to Avoid French Taxes. Reuters.com. 28. Le Monde (2015). France Quietly Repeals 75% Supertax After Revenue Shortfall. LeMonde.fr. 29. Laffer, A. B. (2004). The Laffer Curve: Past, Present, and Future. Heritage Foundation Backgrounder No. 1765. 32. Mazerov, M. (2014). Kansas’ Tax Cut Experience Refutes Supply-Side Predictions. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. 34. Gale, W. G., & Samwick, A. A. (2014). Effects of Income Tax Changes on Economic Growth. Brookings Institution. 35. Trabandt, M., & Uhlig, H. (2011). The Laffer Curve Revisited. Journal of Monetary Economics, 58(4), 305-327. 37. Piketty, T., Saez, E., & Stantcheva, S. (2014). Optimal Taxation of Top Labor Incomes: A Tale of Three Elasticities. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(1), 230-271. 39. Saez, E., Slemrod, J., & Giertz, S. H. (2012). The Elasticity of Taxable Income with Respect to Marginal Tax Rates: A Critical Review. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(1), 3-50. 40. Kleven, H. J., Knudsen, M. B., Kreiner, C. T., Pedersen, S., & Saez, E. (2011). Unwilling or Unable to Cheat? Evidence from a Tax Audit Experiment in Denmark. Econometrica, 79(3), 651-692. 42. Gruber, J., & Saez, E. (2002). The Elasticity of Taxable Income: Evidence and Implications. Journal of Public Economics, 84(1), 1-32. 43. Feldstein, M. (1995). The Effect of Marginal Tax Rates on Taxable Income: A Panel Study of the 1986 Tax Reform Act. Journal of Political Economy, 103(3), 551-572. 44. Kopczuk, W. (2010). The Elasticity of Taxable Income: New Data and Estimates. National Tax Journal, 63(2), 301-318. 45. Congressional Budget Office (2019). Dynamic Scoring: An Introduction to the Methodology. CBO.gov. 48. Varner, C., Young, C., & Lurie, I. (2018). The Effects of State Income Taxes on Millionaires: Evidence from California. Stanford University Working Paper. 49. Rauh, J., & Shyu, R. (2019). Behavioral Responses to State Income Taxation of High Earners: Evidence from California. NBER Working Paper No. 26349. 50. California Legislative Analyst’s Office (2013). Analysis of Proposition 30 Revenue Estimates. LAO.ca.gov. 51. Young, C. (2020). No, Millionaires Don’t Flee High-Tax States in Droves. The New York Times. 53. Moretti, E., & Wilson, D. J. (2017). The Effect of State Taxes on the Geographical Location of Top Earners: Evidence from Star Scientists. American Economic Review, 107(7), 1858-1903. 56. Varner, C., & Young, C. (2015). Millionaire Migration in California: Administrative Data for Three Waves of Tax Reform. Stanford University Working Paper. 57. New Jersey Department of the Treasury (2016). Report on the Economic Impact of the Millionaires’ Tax. NJ.gov. 58. Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2016). State “Millionaires’ Taxes” Do Not Drive Away High Earners. CBPP.org. 59. Cohen, R., & Steindel, C. (2010). The Effect of Taxes on Migration in New Jersey. Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 61. Cristobal Young (2010). The Myth of Millionaire Tax Flight. Stanford University Press. 64. New Jersey Department of the Treasury (2008). Analysis of High-Income Taxpayer Migration Post-2004 Tax Increase. NJ.gov. 65. OECD (2021). International Tax Cooperation: The Global Minimum Tax Proposal. OECD.org. 67. Agell, J., Englund, P., & Södersten, J. (1996). Tax Reform of the Century: The Swedish Experiment. National Tax Journal, 49(4), 643-664. 68. Norrman, E., & Waldenström, D. (2004). Tax Policy and Economic Growth: The Swedish Case. Ekonomisk Debatt, 32(6). 72. Swedish Ministry of Finance (1991). The Swedish Tax Reform of 1991: An Overview. Government.se. 74. Henrekson, M., & Stenkula, M. (2015). Swedish Taxation: Developments Since 1862. Palgrave Macmillan. 75. Du Rietz, G., Johansson, D., & Stenkula, M. (2015). Swedish Capital Income Taxation (1862–2013). In M. Henrekson & M. Stenkula (Eds.), Swedish Taxation (pp. 139-202). Palgrave Macmillan.

---