'I want to shift taxes from labour to natural resources – here's step one'

Three months have passed since I first shared my thoughts on how we can update capitalism to achieve prosperity within planetary boundaries.

My concept is straightforward: shifting taxation from labour to natural resources. When employing people becomes less expensive and consuming natural resources becomes costlier, the driving forces throughout the economy change. Companies that do more with fewer resources become the winners.

Since then, I've met with business leaders, boards, investors, economists, biologists, climate researchers, entrepreneurs, politicians and – perhaps most importantly – citizens, that is, voters.

I receive abundant feedback, new opportunities and recommendations for books, videos and podcasts. This is one of the greatest advantages of openly sharing one's ideas. I often tell younger entrepreneurs: don't keep your thoughts secret! Share them. The more people who listen and respond, the better the ideas become – and the greater the chance of success.

So how do we achieve a global tax shift? From taxing labour, which is positive, to taxing what we want to see less of – that which strains natural ecosystems.

Taxation is decided by politicians, not columnists or entrepreneurs, so let me address a question I frequently receive: "Why don't you become a politician or start a new party?"

I'm grateful for the appreciation from those who've suggested this, but I don't believe it would benefit the change, nor do I think it's necessary. I believe in a system upgrade, not a revolution. We already have a system with balance between state and free market. I want to upgrade it by changing how we collect taxes, with the aim of steering the market within planetary boundaries.

I believe in a system upgrade, not a revolution

There isn't a party in Sweden that wants to abolish either the market economy or the state. And as far as I know, there isn't a party that denies the science of planetary boundaries. No party thinks unemployment is good, or that destroying nature is positive. I candidly hope we can reach a point where all relevant parties can work towards – and further develop – the tax shift I'm proposing.

But we're not there yet. Today, my thoughts are far from political reality – politicians from all sides have confirmed this. Yet many of them have encouraged me. So how can politicians both dismiss and encourage? It's about the nature of politics. Several politicians have explained to me that politics is typically reactive. There are few modern examples where politicians have pointed out a new, bold direction – without it ending in disaster.

So I asked my AI: "What's required for politics to lead in such matters?" The answer was three things: a clear narrative, broad support and right timing. An influential and still active politician read my first column and bounced ideas with me over lunch. He thanked me for "raking the path for politicians" – an expression I've embraced. I see it as my responsibility to continue raking – to co-create and spread a sharper narrative, build broader support and influence the timing as best I can.

If you believe in this path, don't just point to the politicians. This change requires more than legislation. We'll do it together! And who knows – perhaps one day we'll stand together in the public gallery of Parliament when decisions in this direction are made there. That would be something, wouldn't it?

Note: This article is a translation from our Swedish-language sister site, Impact Loop.

‍

‍