geissi

Afaik, even if you’re genetically lactose intolerant, you can develop lactose digesting gut bacteria.

Yes, and I still don’t see how this is supposed to affect where they invest their money.

I suppose they might affect someone's decision to conduct their investments as a citizen of a country with wealth taxes, if they have the financial means to quickly become a citizen of another country.

I honestly don’t understand what you mean by that.
You don’t have to a citizen or resident of a country to invest there. Citizenship or residency has no influence on investment decisions beyond perhaps some sense of patriotism.

The point was that it does not affect investment decisions

Companies could be moved pretty quickly, and once you move the company headquarter, most of the job is done

Wealth taxed are usually tied to the residence or citizenship of the owner, not where a company is headquartered.
Typically, companies move their headquarters to tax havens to avoid business taxes, not wealth taxes.

what of investors

Wealth taxes do not interact with investments.

They tax personal wealth, not profits.

Foreign investors who are not subject to your domestic wealth tax will invest in your country as long as it's profitable enough.
Domestic investors would be subject to a wealth tax regardless of where they invest and will also invest in your country as long as it's profitable enough.

Meanwhile the German chancellor: Just because we’re rolling back climate protection laws, the world won’t end tomorrow.

Ah,this again.
The mentioned discounts apply on all pharmaceuticals sold in Germany, regardless on where they were manufactured.
Citing them as the reason for relocating planned facilities is clearly no business decision but political blackmail.

And it’s no wonder the IW also pushes this framing. They are little more than a glorified industry lobby group.

I may have overlooked it, but I did not see a single chart nor any mention in the text addressing the tax burden for an individual worker.
Which would be a far more meaningful discussion that the pure number of taxes.

each tax means a new adviser

That is evidently untrue and I doubt they want to tell us that French companies need 300+ tax advisors. Yes, more taxes can mean more complexity. So do more laws, more employees, more customers or more product lines.

This is a completely pointless truism than does not prove anything.
They just claim that it’s bad without anything substantial to back it up.

The statement that you can raise the same tax revenue with fewer taxes shows that they don’t understand why different taxes exist in the first place.

Also it conflates taxes, fees, social security contributions, all of which may follow different legal and budgetary rules.

On principle, not necessarily.
The article just makes it sound like it would just be a bilateral thing and the remaining member states just accept or veto the accession. It's likely a more complex and involved process than it's made out to be.

Also if they actually do change how voting works, they might as well push for more qualified majority instead of unanimity.

I don’t quite understand how this is supposed to work.

AFAIK there is technically no ‘veto’ that you can just deny individual members. Certain policy decisions require unanimity.
Seems like they’d need to redraw the contracts and change how voting works.