L’Institute for Fiscal Studies fait paraître un nouveau numéro de la revue Fiscal Studies, incluant une section qui reprend des présentations effectuées dans le cadre d’un symposium sur les inégalités.
Consulter le document »
, «Globalisation, taxation and inequality », pp. 229-235.
L’auteur plaide en faveur de formes nouvelles et plus ambitieuses de coopération internationale et de formes modernes d’imposition du patrimoine.
Today’s tax systems, in which value-added taxes and payroll taxes play a prominent role, are largely creations of the 1950s. We need to invent modern tax systems adapted to the reality of the 21st century: the growing importance of capital and the rise of inequality. This article reviews some of the challenges involved with increasing the progressivity of tax systems in a globalised world and discusses how these challenges could be overcome. I make the case for new and more ambitious forms of international cooperation and for modern forms of wealth taxation.
- et, «Tax equity around the world: a discussion », pp. 237-241.
Les auteurs émettent certaines réserves quant à la faisabilité des propositions plus complexes de Gabriel Zucman.
In his paper ‘Globalisation, taxation and inequality’ in this issue, Gabriel Zucman argues that thecurrent tax system is not appropriate for our times. In particular, the system heavily taxes labour andconsumption and largely exempts capital and capital income from taxation. This tax structure is atodds with rising inequality and the high capital share of income for the rich.Zucman acknowledges that the international community has made progress towards limitinginternational tax competition and evasion and avoidance, thereby facilitating the taxation of capital.This includes the automatic exchange of information about financial accounts and investments, andthe OECD/G20-mediated ‘Pillar 2’ agreement on a global minimum tax on the profits of the largestmultinational corporations. However, he argues that these recent global measures on tax avoidanceand evasion do not go far enough.
- et , «Taxing high-net-worth individuals: experience from Indonesia », pp. 235-245.
L’un des enseignements de la taxation des individus à patrimoine élevé en Indonésie est l’importance de la coordination des efforts entre la politique fiscale et l’administration fiscale.
With high levels of inequality and a rising share of capital income in total income, as Gabriel Zucman’spiece in this symposium pithily highlights, there are several reasons why tax authorities in developingcountries should place a special focus on high-net-worth individuals (HNWIs). First, progressive taxsystem structures, combined with high levels of income concentration, mean that even a small increasein tax avoidance and evasion amongst the ultra-wealthy can lead to a substantial drop in overall taxrevenue. Second, HNWIs tend to have highly complex tax arrangements, income and wealth scatteredacross the world, and access to tax planning experts, which facilitates tax avoidance and tax evasion.
- , «Progressive taxation in the face of inflation and instability: lessons from Argentina », pp. 247-249.
Les auteurs s’intéressent à la taxation de la richesse en Argentine, en réponse à l’article de Gabriel Zucman sur les inégalités.
Gabriel Zucman’s article in this symposium sets out an agenda for how international cooperation can overcome barriers to progressive taxation and barriers to the taxation of wealth. Argentina has been at the forefront of developments in international tax cooperation. It has been one of the global minimum tax’s strongest proponents, and has pushed for it to go even further by increasing the minimum rate to 21 per cent or 25 per cent. Argentina has also made use of automatic exchange of information (AEOI) to detect offshore tax evasion, signing AEOI agreements with almost 100 countries. AEOI has had modest results for Argentina. Zucman’s article notes that offshore real estate is exempted under AEOI, but offshore currency holdings – which are an important asset class for wealthy Argentinians – are also poorly reported.
- , , « Twenty-five years of income inequality in Britain: the role of wages, household earnings and redistribution », pp. 251-274.
Au cours des années 2010, le salaire minimum s’est imposé comme le principal outil politique du gouvernement pour stimuler les revenus, mais cela s’est produit presque simultanément avec des réductions des transferts sous condition de ressources, ce qui signifie que les inégalités de revenus des ménages ont considérablement diminué et que l’inégalité des revenus nets a augmenté.
We study earnings and income inequality in Britain over the 25 years prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. We focus on the middle 90 per cent of the income distribution, within which the gap between top and bottom in 2019–20 was essentially the same, after taxes and transfers, as a quarter-century earlier. This has led to a narrative of ‘stable inequality’, which we argue misses important nuances and key lessons from the UK’s experience. In particular, there have been periods in which household earnings inequalities were changing considerably but tax and transfer policy was offsetting its effects on income inequality – in different directions at different times, reflecting sharp changes of policy approach. Means-tested transfers played a crucial role in containing inequality during the ‘inclusive growth’ period of the 1990s and early 2000s, as well as the Great Recession. During the 2010s, the minimum wage emerged as the government’s primary policy tool for boosting incomes, but this happened almost simultaneously with cutbacks to means-tested transfers, meaning that household earnings inequalities fell considerably and yet net income inequality rose.
- , « Money matters: consumption variability across the income distribution », pp. 275-298.
L’alimentation, les loisirs et les biens et services de soins personnels présentent des niveaux relativement élevés de variabilité de la consommation parmi les ménages à faibles revenus.
Using the Consumer Expenditure Survey, we document the level and variability of quarterly consumption across the socio-economic distribution. While the measurement of well-being is focused on income, the secular and policy discourse prioritises income-adequacy to meet family needs. This concern over income-adequacy centres on the capacity of families to predictably consume minimally acceptable levels of basic needs, and the social and economic mobility consequences of low consumption. Our results show a clear socio-economic and demographic gradient of lower consumption amid higher consumption variability for disadvantaged groups. Food, entertainment, and personal care goods and services exhibit relatively high levels of consumption variability among low-income households.
, « On the marginal cost of public funds: the implications of charitable giving and warm glow », pp. 299-307.
Cet article met en évidence l’impact important des dons de charité et de la lueur d’espoir sur l’identification du coût marginal des fonds publics.
This paper highlights the important impact of charitable giving and warm glow on the identification of the marginal cost of public funds (MCF). We employ the warm glow model of charitable giving to describe taxpayer behaviour, whereas we employ the standard model to evaluate social welfare. We first identify the impact theoretically. Then we conduct simulations to quantify its size numerically. The results of our numerical simulations show that the standard model underestimates the magnitude of MCF by at least 10 per cent. Our work suggests that adopting a non-welfarist social welfare function can make a significant difference to the identification of MCF.