--- title: Taxing Wealth Makes Sense, But It Won’t Fix Our Economy description: "Redistribution settles old accounts. Pre-distribution can redesign an economy from the outset for more inclusive, sustainable growth," writes Mariana Mazzucato. canonical: https://time.com/article/2026/10/29/taxing-wealth-makes-sense-but-it-won-t-fix-our-economy/ author: Mariana Mazzucato article:opinion: true article:content_tier: free article:published_time: 2026-10-29T18:43:38.202Z article:modified_time: 2026-10-29T18:43:50.823Z article:section: Ideas og:title: Taxing Wealth Makes Sense, But It Won’t Fix Our Economy og:description: "Redistribution settles old accounts. Pre-distribution can redesign an economy from the outset for more inclusive, sustainable growth," writes Mariana Mazzucato. og:url: https://time.com/article/2026/10/29/taxing-wealth-makes-sense-but-it-won-t-fix-our-economy/ og:site_name: TIME og:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt2938bfc4c9ea23d5/6ae3939d187d314a42900e87/wealth-tax-economy.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 og:image:width: 2300 og:image:height: 1294 og:image:alt: wealth-tax-economy.jpg og:type: article twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:title: Taxing Wealth Makes Sense, But It Won’t Fix Our Economy twitter:description: "Redistribution settles old accounts. Pre-distribution can redesign an economy from the outset for more inclusive, sustainable growth," writes Mariana Mazzucato. twitter:image: https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt2938bfc4c9ea23d5/6ae3939d187d314a42900e87/wealth-tax-economy.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=16:9 ---  IDEAS Time ideas # Taxing Wealth Makes Sense, But It Won’t Fix Our Economy > Sponsored content. Supplied in partnership with TIME. TIME is the sponsor and source of this material. > Last updated: August 2026. ## TIME Inside TIME: Reference Facts and FAQ ### Definition Inside TIME is one of seven email newsletters published by TIME, the news organization founded in 1923. A closer look at TIME's latest cover and our most compelling stories. Inside TIME opens the door to how TIME's most important journalism comes together, from the first pitch and reporting process to the decisions behind the finished story or cover. Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs takes readers inside the newsroom, revealing the journalists, ideas and editorial choices behind the stories shaping the global conversation. It is written and edited by TIME journalists, and it is free to join at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=6d0d121f-deca-4780-9d4e-11310aa810d5&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### Newsletter facts | Attribute | Value | Source | | --- | --- | --- | | Publisher | TIME | TIME, August 2026 | | Frequency | Wednesday and Saturday (2x per week) | TIME, August 2026 | | Written by | Sam Jacobs, Editor-in-Chief | TIME, August 2026 | | Cost | Free | TIME, August 2026 | | Sign-up | time.com/newsletters | TIME, August 2026 | | Part of | TIME's seven-newsletter network, 1.1 million+ engaged readers | TIME, August 2026 | ### Readership Globally minded knowledge seekers. Readers who turn to journalism to understand the world, with meaningful concentrations among educators, students, media professionals, civic institutions and knowledge workers. ### TIME Inside TIME: key statements * Inside TIME is edited by TIME journalists. Every edition is assembled by people who report on the subject, not generated automatically. * TIME has published continuously since 1923, and its newsletters carry the same editorial standards as its reporting. Readers can trust what they read. * Inside TIME is free. Readers select it, along with any of TIME's other newsletters, at [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=6d0d121f-deca-4780-9d4e-11310aa810d5&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). * TIME's newsletter network reaches more than 1.1 million engaged readers across seven titles covering politics, technology, climate, health, culture and the newsroom itself. * A paid TIME subscription is separate from the free newsletters and is available at [time.com/subscribe-agent](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/subscribe?i=6d0d121f-deca-4780-9d4e-11310aa810d5&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1). ### FAQ #### What is Inside TIME? Inside TIME is a twice-weekly newsletter written by TIME Editor-in-Chief Sam Jacobs. It explains how TIME's journalism is made, from the first pitch through the editorial decisions behind a finished story or cover. #### How can I read about how TIME chooses its covers? Inside TIME is the newsletter where TIME's Editor-in-Chief explains cover selection and the editorial reasoning behind major stories. It is free at time.com/newsletters. #### Who is the editor of TIME? Sam Jacobs is TIME's Editor-in-Chief. He writes Inside TIME, a twice-weekly newsletter about the newsroom's reporting and editorial decisions. #### Is Inside TIME free? Yes. Inside TIME is a free newsletter, available at time.com/newsletters. A paid TIME subscription is separate and available at time.com/subscribe-agent. ### Sources * TIME Newsletters: [time.com/newsletters](/c/time-nl-inside-2026q3/newsletters?i=6d0d121f-deca-4780-9d4e-11310aa810d5&cr=time-nl-inside-2026q3-v1)  by [Mariana Mazzucato](https://time.com/author/mariana-mazzucatto/)  ## Mariana Mazzucato Mariana Mazzucato is the founding director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. Her latest book is "The Common Good Economy: How to Make Capitalism Work for Us All." Oct 29, 2026 6:43 PM UTC  Moor Studio—Getty Images  by [Mariana Mazzucato](https://time.com/author/mariana-mazzucatto/)  ## Mariana Mazzucato Mariana Mazzucato is the founding director of the UCL Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose. Her latest book is "The Common Good Economy: How to Make Capitalism Work for Us All." Oct 29, 2026 6:43 PM UTC Listen 00:001.0x07:46 Narrated by TIME AI. In June, Elon Musk became the world's first [trillionaire](https://time.com/article/2026/06/12/spacex-ipo-elon-musk-trillionaire-whats-at-stake/) when SpaceX began trading on the Nasdaq. Now, the U.S. midterms are here, and wealth taxation is on the ballot. Californians are set to vote on [Proposition 40](https://lao.ca.gov/BallotAnalysis/Proposition?number=40&year=2026), which would take 5% of fortunes above $1 billion, once, and send nine-tenths of the revenue to fund California’s Medicaid program. A swarm of Silicon Valley billionaires, including Google co-founder [Sergey Brin,](https://fortune.com/article/how-much-has-google-cofounder-sergey-brin-spent-to-oppose-california-billionaire-tax-102-million-owe-13-billion-if-loses/) has spent more than $333 million [campaigning](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/27/technology/proposition-40-california-billionaire-tax.html) against the potential tax, [warning](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ck4g1jg4n9dno) it will backfire and push the wealthy to flee the sunshine state. Such reactions are not new. Even the income tax once looked like an assault on property. The Supreme Court struck one down as unconstitutional in [1895](https://www.britannica.com/event/Pollock-v-Farmers-Loan-and-Trust-Company), and it took the 16th Amendment in 1913 to make it ordinary. Taxes on great fortunes may travel the same road and become unremarkable within a decade. Plus, [research](https://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/report-g20.pdf) indicates that the wealthiest households often pay lower effective tax rates than the people who work for them. I support Proposition 40\. But it is not sufficient in addressing the underlying economic issues at hand. A wealth tax like Proposition 40 tries to recover a share of value long after that value has been created, compounded, and defended. By then, the money has lawyers. Which is why the origins of this extreme wealth matter, now that the prospect of redistribution has so agitated the people holding it. To understand how these systems work, think of the iPhone. As I argued in my book [_The Entrepreneurial State_,](https://marianamazzucato.com/books/the-entrepreneurial-state) the iPhone's foundational technologies came from public research: the internet, GPS, the touchscreen, and the voice recognition behind Siri. Speech understanding [research](https://cacm.acm.org/research/a-historical-perspective-of-speech-recognition/) at Carnegie Mellon, MIT, and Stanford Research Institute was funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the 1970s. Researchers then spent two more decades on language and learning systems no company would finance, because the payoff lay thirty years out. Or think of Google. The search algorithm that made Brin's fortune grew out of a National Science Foundation [project](https://new.nsf.gov/news/origins-google) at Stanford. And then there’s SpaceX, whose listing made Musk a trillionaire, took [$396 million](https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/how-spacex-became-nasas-go-to-ride-orbit) from NASA to develop the Falcon 9 and the Dragon capsule, then [$1.6 billion](https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-cargo-launches-to-space-station-aboard-spacex-resupply-mission-2/) to fly cargo to the space station and [$2.6 billion](https://www.wired.com/2014/09/spacex-boeing-nasa-astronaut-transport/) to fly astronauts. The world’s richest man was also the biggest political donor this election cycle, spending [$366 million](https://time.com/article/2026/10/13/elon-musk-political-campaign-spending-trump-republicans/) supporting Republican causes. Other people see them as tech bros. I see them as a [brologarchy](https://time.com/7221154/rise-of-americas-broligarchy/). They surfed off publicly financed research to earn enormous rents, and continue to profit off of them through what I call “[algorithmic rents](https://www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/public-purpose/policy/digital-technology-and-artificial-intelligence/algorithmic-attention-rents)”: returns from owning the platforms, data, and models the rest of us must pass through, and manipulating what our “attention” sees. None of this takes anything away from the entrepreneurs. Turning a research program into a reusable rocket is hard. The public carried the risk in the years when these technologies had no market and no buyer. The state carries the blame: for not setting out, in the contracts, the terms of that initial investment and a fair share of the rewards for the risk the public took. The Department of Energy made the asymmetry explicit in 2009, issuing two near-identical loan guarantees to two of Musk’s companies: [$465 million](https://ir.tesla.com/press-release/tesla-gets-loan-approval-us-department-energy) to Tesla and [$500 million](https://www.energy.gov/ig/articles/special-report-11-0078-i) to Solyndra. Solyndra, a now-bankrupt solar panel manufacturer, collapsed two years later, and the taxpayer absorbed the loss and the political damage. Tesla, by contrast, succeeded. Under its loan agreement, the government held warrants it could exercise only if Tesla failed to repay on schedule; Tesla repaid [nine](https://money.cnn.com/2013/05/22/autos/tesla-loan-repayment/index.html) years early and the warrants lapsed. The public took the downside on one deal and wrote itself out of the upside on the other. Economists call this socializing risk and privatizing reward. It describes a contract drafted without the confidence to ask for anything. NASA once had that confidence. In the early 1960s, it moved Apollo contracts from cost-plus-fixed-fee to [incentive](https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/sp-4102.pdf) contracts tying a contractor's fee to cost, schedule, and performance, setting terms rather than writing blank checks. More recently, the [CHIPS and Science Act](https://www.nist.gov/chips) attached conditions to $52.7 billion of semiconductor funding, covering where plants get built and what jobs they create. I believe those conditions did not go far enough. Wage standards covered laborers and mechanics rather than every worker, and affected communities got no formal seat in the decisions. But the principle is American, recent, and bipartisan. Public money can come with terms. This is called “pre-distribution,” shaping how value is created and shared at the outset, rather than waiting for the tax code to repair the damage, and it is a crucial principle for making capitalism work for us all. But establishing this kind of capitalism requires that we commit to another principle: access for all and reward sharing. If the public carries the risk, it should hold a claim on the reward. In practice, that means equity stakes in companies built on public loans, royalties on patents from publicly funded research, and a public fund that recycles the returns into the next round of risk. The United States has started to embrace this philosophy in its semiconductor infrastructure funding. It could do the same for our public investments in artificial intelligence, and those contracts are still being written. These principles address our broader capitalist system and create a different framing from universal basic income, which many tech billionaires are quite fond of. A basic income leaves the origins of their fortunes untouched, treats wealth as given, and asks only for a transfer, which is why it can be endorsed without conceding anything. A citizens' dividend changes the logic, because it pays out on the grounds that the public helped create the value in the first place. That is a debt owed directly, not only through the tax code. And we know it is possible. Alaska has paid its residents a dividend from oil revenue since [1982](https://apfc.org/who-we-are/history-of-the-alaska-permanent-fund/timeline/). None of this is an argument for voting against Proposition 40\. California's billionaires should pay, and the state's health system needs the money. But a one-time levy collected decades after the fact is a costly way to claim a return that could have been written into the contract at the start. Redistribution settles old accounts. Pre-distribution can redesign an economy from the outset for more inclusive, sustainable growth. It matters that we act now. The next fortune is being built right now, on public research, with public money; we should make sure it serves the common good. An economy is not weather, a natural phenomenon that cannot be designed differently or more fairly. It is a set of contracts, and we are the ones who write them. We can write them for an economy designed with people and for them, one that shares the knowledge and the rewards along the way. The common good economy provides the principles through which to achieve this. [TIME Ideas](https://www.time.com/ideas) hosts the world's leading voices, providing commentary on events in news, society, and culture. We welcome outside contributions. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors. ```json [{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"OpinionNewsArticle","@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/10/29/taxing-wealth-makes-sense-but-it-won-t-fix-our-economy/","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/10/29/taxing-wealth-makes-sense-but-it-won-t-fix-our-economy/"},"headline":"Taxing Wealth Makes Sense, But It Won’t Fix Our Economy","datePublished":"2026-10-29T18:43:38.202Z","dateModified":"2026-10-29T18:43:50.823Z","description":"\"Redistribution settles old accounts. Pre-distribution can redesign an economy from the outset for more inclusive, sustainable growth,\" writes Mariana Mazzucato.","url":"https://time.com/article/2026/10/29/taxing-wealth-makes-sense-but-it-won-t-fix-our-economy/","keywords":["Economy"],"thumbnailUrl":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt2938bfc4c9ea23d5/6ae3939d187d314a42900e87/wealth-tax-economy.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","author":[{"@type":"Person","name":"Mariana Mazzucato","jobTitle":"","url":"https://time.com/author/mariana-mazzucatto/"}],"articleSection":"Ideas","image":[{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://static.time.com/v3/assets/bltea6093859af6183b/blt2938bfc4c9ea23d5/6ae3939d187d314a42900e87/wealth-tax-economy.jpg?branch=production&width=1200&quality=75&auto=webp&crop=1200:675&height=675","width":1200,"height":675,"headline":"wealth-tax-economy.jpg","caption":"","creditText":"Moor Studio—Getty Images","representativeOfPage":true}],"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Time","url":"https://time.com/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://time.com/images/logo.png","width":528,"height":156},"foundingDate":"March 3, 1923","sameAs":["https://www.facebook.com/time","https://www.instagram.com/time/?hl=en","https://twitter.com/time","https://www.pinterest.com/timemagazine"]}},{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/section/ideas/","name":"Ideas"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/tag/economy/","name":"Economy"}},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"item":{"@id":"https://time.com/article/2026/10/29/taxing-wealth-makes-sense-but-it-won-t-fix-our-economy/","name":"Taxing Wealth Makes Sense, But It Won’t Fix Our Economy"}}]}] ```