This may be true of a wealth tax in the absence of a VAT. If you have any good sources on this, I'd be very curious to see them (though I'll look them up myself

This may be true of a wealth tax in the absence of a VAT. If you have any good sources on this, I'd be very curious to see them (though I'll look them up myself, too). Regardless, too much consumption (and too little saving) has never been a problem for the group that would be subject to a wealth tax. By exempting the first $100k - $300k (or so) of wealth, most people would experience no such disincentive. In any case, the larger point isn't whether or not it discourages investment. The real question is whether this kind of policy would be better or worse than what we've currently got. Capital gains taxes also discourage investment. Income taxes discourage work. Those impose real costs too. The claim I'm making is that any discouragement of investment or savings (among the already by-definition-wealthy) imposes far less of an economic cost than the current discouragements of by capital gains and income taxes.