What do you think?
Rate this book
不公不義的勝利: 如何扭轉貧富不均？資本主義與租稅正義的民主激辯
巴菲特：「清潔工的稅率都比我高。」論語：「不患寡而患不均；不患貧而患不安。」造成貧富不均的，不是經濟，而是政治；百年以來，美國富豪稅率，首次低於勞動階級！不公義的稅制，造就不公正的社會。 該不該向有錢人課徵財富稅？ 加州柏克萊大學兩位經濟學家的回答是肯定的。 本書從美國的租稅歷史與租稅正義切入， 為讀者演示美國如何因意識形態與政治改變稅制， 也透過美國案例，為各國政府稅制改革提出研究方法與解方。 ★《二十一世紀資本論》作者皮凱提；諾貝爾經濟獎得主史迪格里茲、杜芙若 重量級推薦 ★《MIT科技評論》年度經濟學書單 對全球經濟與政治做出重要的貢獻►皮凱提／《二十一世紀資本論》作者 揭發日益加劇的不平等現象的原因►史迪格里茲／2001年諾貝爾經濟獎得主 為全球化世界重塑稅收的全面提案►杜芙若／2019年諾貝爾經濟獎得主 即使超級富翁已經有錢到難以想像，但他們的租稅卻劇烈減少到1920年代以來首見的低水準。在此同時，勞動階級美國人卻被要求繳納更多稅金。《不公不義的勝利》一書就像是專為這個引人注目的「轉型不正義」而進行的鑑定調查。 本書的兩位作者&
Kindle Edition
First published October 15, 2019
331 people are currently reading
6322 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 201 reviews
January 23, 2020
basically just read this to argue with my d*d
November 7, 2019
A must-read!! I want to shout this on the Rooftop with a megaphone: our tax system is totally regressive. The wealthy evade taxes. They pay less than their share! This does not have to be the case. We, the middle class and working class, can’t evade taxes and yet we the idiots keep voting for people who let corporations and billionaires escape to tax shelters. The history in this book (though super short) was really fascinating. Hey, guess why our tax system is regressive? It’s the same reason for all the other flaws in our constitution? Did you guess yet? Yup. It’s slavery.
September 5, 2024
Let's stop protecting the mega rich.
Saez does a remarkable job in The Triumph of Injustice in teaching about the current tax code, putting it into context, and explaining the ramifications and significance of the US tax system. The bottom line is that while the US federal income tax appears progressive (meaning taxes increases as personal income increases) it is actually almost entirely regressive (meaning there is more tax burden on the poor and working class.) There is little doubt at the end of this book about who are tax code currently benefits: the mega rich.
122 million of the US population lives on $18K a year. <-please read that again. 122 million adults make $18K a year in the United States. Adjusting for inflation, this income has been FLAT since the 1980s. The middle class currently makes $75K a year. Despite conventional wisdom, the middle class income is not vanishing. The upper middle class, 22 million Americans, make about $220K a year. The richest 1% of Americans, 2.4 million people, are very very far from the upper class making around $1.5M a year. The top 1% earns almost TWICE as much income as the ENTIRE WORKING CLASS which is 50x larger than the top 1%. In 2018, for the first time in 100 years, the top 400 richest Americans paid less taxes than the working class.
There are very specific reasons for the wealth inequality. It has not been a natural drift, but intentional regulation of taxing and business ushered in the 1980s and perpetuated by every American President since with the capstone of the injustice occurring with Trump's 20% corporate tax. The low corporate tax has so many more ramifications than I previously thought before reading this book. Yes, Trump's tax plan marginally lowered income tax (with a 5 year expiration date) but federal income tax is only one tiny part of the tax story.
Only people pay taxes. Corporations don't really pay taxes, the people that own a company pay corporate taxes. Shareholders pay corporate taxes. Real people, and really rich people pay these taxes. There are really two types of taxes: labor taxes and capital taxes. Labor taxes are income tax, payroll taxes, consumption taxes and healthcare premiums (which act as a tax on employees.). Capital taxes are taxed on increased capital, not labor, and these taxes fall to those who don't consume all of their income but save it, invest it and own companies with it. Capital taxes are progressively becoming tax free. While middle class income and minimum wage stay the same and payroll and consumption taxes go up, the poor pay a much larger percentage of taxes from their wealth. The rich side step taxes.
Multinational companies, like Apple, Facebook and Google, motivated by a race to the bottom in international competition to have the lowest tax rates, pay much less taxes than domestic companies. This is because smaller countries offer them tax dodging company shells so that they can siphon off tax revenue that they otherwise wouldn't see. Big countries like the US can't provide even lower corporate taxes because we have an enormous amount of companies and would lose tax revenue across the board. And then companies make tax deductible donations to charitable organizations that they themselves own and control.
In the 1980s, tax dodging became virtuous as the libertarian "tax is theft" ideals gained popularity. Tax dodging grew rapidly and enriched many, a trend that continues today. Globalization facilitates tax sheltering but only because there is very little international policing and cooperation. These tax havens DO NOT bring production to other countries.
Capital taxes have never correlated with labor income. The labor class grew by 2% every year after the 1940s until the1980s and since then has only grown by 0.1%. Taxing capital less DOES NOT increase labor income. Trickle down economics has never been proven to be a viable economic strategy and likely causes working class stagnation.
A progressive corporate and wealth tax is critical. Multinational company taxes need to be tracked in every country. The huge income taxes of the New Deal era were actually designed to tax only a few enormously wealthy people of the time, not middle or upper class people. The point of taxing the rich is NOT to create revenue but to STOP wealth concentration. The solutions: wealth tax, progressive corporate tax, inheritance taxes, estate taxes while we drop labor taxes.
Highly recommend this read. It's very palatable even to someone like me who only has a cursory understanding of taxes.
Saez does a remarkable job in The Triumph of Injustice in teaching about the current tax code, putting it into context, and explaining the ramifications and significance of the US tax system. The bottom line is that while the US federal income tax appears progressive (meaning taxes increases as personal income increases) it is actually almost entirely regressive (meaning there is more tax burden on the poor and working class.) There is little doubt at the end of this book about who are tax code currently benefits: the mega rich.
122 million of the US population lives on $18K a year. <-please read that again. 122 million adults make $18K a year in the United States. Adjusting for inflation, this income has been FLAT since the 1980s. The middle class currently makes $75K a year. Despite conventional wisdom, the middle class income is not vanishing. The upper middle class, 22 million Americans, make about $220K a year. The richest 1% of Americans, 2.4 million people, are very very far from the upper class making around $1.5M a year. The top 1% earns almost TWICE as much income as the ENTIRE WORKING CLASS which is 50x larger than the top 1%. In 2018, for the first time in 100 years, the top 400 richest Americans paid less taxes than the working class.
There are very specific reasons for the wealth inequality. It has not been a natural drift, but intentional regulation of taxing and business ushered in the 1980s and perpetuated by every American President since with the capstone of the injustice occurring with Trump's 20% corporate tax. The low corporate tax has so many more ramifications than I previously thought before reading this book. Yes, Trump's tax plan marginally lowered income tax (with a 5 year expiration date) but federal income tax is only one tiny part of the tax story.
Only people pay taxes. Corporations don't really pay taxes, the people that own a company pay corporate taxes. Shareholders pay corporate taxes. Real people, and really rich people pay these taxes. There are really two types of taxes: labor taxes and capital taxes. Labor taxes are income tax, payroll taxes, consumption taxes and healthcare premiums (which act as a tax on employees.). Capital taxes are taxed on increased capital, not labor, and these taxes fall to those who don't consume all of their income but save it, invest it and own companies with it. Capital taxes are progressively becoming tax free. While middle class income and minimum wage stay the same and payroll and consumption taxes go up, the poor pay a much larger percentage of taxes from their wealth. The rich side step taxes.
Multinational companies, like Apple, Facebook and Google, motivated by a race to the bottom in international competition to have the lowest tax rates, pay much less taxes than domestic companies. This is because smaller countries offer them tax dodging company shells so that they can siphon off tax revenue that they otherwise wouldn't see. Big countries like the US can't provide even lower corporate taxes because we have an enormous amount of companies and would lose tax revenue across the board. And then companies make tax deductible donations to charitable organizations that they themselves own and control.
In the 1980s, tax dodging became virtuous as the libertarian "tax is theft" ideals gained popularity. Tax dodging grew rapidly and enriched many, a trend that continues today. Globalization facilitates tax sheltering but only because there is very little international policing and cooperation. These tax havens DO NOT bring production to other countries.
Capital taxes have never correlated with labor income. The labor class grew by 2% every year after the 1940s until the1980s and since then has only grown by 0.1%. Taxing capital less DOES NOT increase labor income. Trickle down economics has never been proven to be a viable economic strategy and likely causes working class stagnation.
A progressive corporate and wealth tax is critical. Multinational company taxes need to be tracked in every country. The huge income taxes of the New Deal era were actually designed to tax only a few enormously wealthy people of the time, not middle or upper class people. The point of taxing the rich is NOT to create revenue but to STOP wealth concentration. The solutions: wealth tax, progressive corporate tax, inheritance taxes, estate taxes while we drop labor taxes.
Highly recommend this read. It's very palatable even to someone like me who only has a cursory understanding of taxes.
December 27, 2020
I already know too much about taxes and tax avoidance schemes to have found most of the historical and background material to be very informative. I work on a lot of deals where an essential part of the deal structuring is to ensure tax efficiency. Sometimes this is picking a structure designed to put more money in my client's pocket, but more often it is about avoiding tax traps that can destroy legitimate transactions, if the traps are not identified and structured around. This kind of tax planning will always exist, even under a simplified and fairer tax code, and though it can be abused, it is generally totally legitimate. Then there is the other kind of tax planning that is sponsored by some of the biggest law and accounting firms that has no legitimate business purpose and really just boils down to tax evasion. It should be stopped.
I kept wanting the authors to get to their program. What's the fix? What's the fix? When they finally got there, I thought that they had some pretty good ideas. I liked the idea of taxing multinational corporations based in the US on the difference between US rates and tax haven rates for the parts of their income that get allocated to tax haven countries. I liked the idea of getting a coalition of major countries to tax corporate profits at a minimum agreed rate and imposing sanctions on countries that charge less. I liked the idea of charging foreign multinationals tax on their US sales to the extent that their effective international tax rate is less than the agreed international minimum. All of these things seemed to be sensible ways to attack offshore tax shelters that would not require an impossible amount of political will. I'm also good with the philosophy behind their proposals for a wealth tax and for equalizing ordinary income and capital gain rates, though I doubt that either of those things is going to happen at any time in the near future, and I thought that their National Income Tax idea had some good thoughts behind it but was too half baked as presented in the book to be a coherent basis for legislation or national policy. But to be fair to the authors, they did exactly what this kind of book ought to do -- give the background, present some really solid ideas, show how those ideas can be expanded and then give the readers a couple of moonshots to stimulate discussion and further thinking. I spent most of the book nodding my head in agreement, so when I occasionally disagreed, it was like a spirited discussion with a friend.
I kept wanting the authors to get to their program. What's the fix? What's the fix? When they finally got there, I thought that they had some pretty good ideas. I liked the idea of taxing multinational corporations based in the US on the difference between US rates and tax haven rates for the parts of their income that get allocated to tax haven countries. I liked the idea of getting a coalition of major countries to tax corporate profits at a minimum agreed rate and imposing sanctions on countries that charge less. I liked the idea of charging foreign multinationals tax on their US sales to the extent that their effective international tax rate is less than the agreed international minimum. All of these things seemed to be sensible ways to attack offshore tax shelters that would not require an impossible amount of political will. I'm also good with the philosophy behind their proposals for a wealth tax and for equalizing ordinary income and capital gain rates, though I doubt that either of those things is going to happen at any time in the near future, and I thought that their National Income Tax idea had some good thoughts behind it but was too half baked as presented in the book to be a coherent basis for legislation or national policy. But to be fair to the authors, they did exactly what this kind of book ought to do -- give the background, present some really solid ideas, show how those ideas can be expanded and then give the readers a couple of moonshots to stimulate discussion and further thinking. I spent most of the book nodding my head in agreement, so when I occasionally disagreed, it was like a spirited discussion with a friend.
January 10, 2020
This is an outstanding book and a must read for anyone interested in inequality and options for what to do about it. The authors are economics professors at Berkeley and both work with Thomas Piketty.
I had heard from various sources about this work and that it is the best work around right now linking economic theory, comprehensive analysis of available, international comparisons, and some actual wisdom in how to put it all together and say something. After working through it, I agree and highly recommend the book. The book requires some fortitude to work through, but there is no way to avoid it in serious discussions of taxes and global finance. It is not highly demanding, however and the authors do an excellent job at communicating some arcane material.
The book has insights and takeaways in every chapter. Among them include:
1) A nice review of the American tax context - who gets taxed on what and how the current situation of high inequality developed.
2) An explanation of tax dodging and tax evasion and what difference there is between them (less than you might think). This includes the industry that has arisen to advise clients on taxes.
3) A discussion of the international race to the bottom in national corporate tax rates.
4) A review of the evidence linking tax policies to national economic growth (or not). While there is much rhetoric on this, the evidence to back it up is thin.
5) A policy related discussion that emphasizes how there are no iron laws or immutable relations at play in tax policies. People made these policies and people can change them. Claims that changes in tax policy will bring about the end of the world are not well supported by evidence. Offshore earning could in principle be taxed, given a modicum of international cooperation.
6) A comparison between the US and different social welfare states to show how the US differed from Europe in terms of both taxes and the services provided for those taxes. The major differences are that on services like health care and education, while both are provided in the US in Europe, much more of the costs for health care and education are paid for privately in the US while they are paid for by the government in Europe. This makes them akin to privately paid taxes in the US. Including them in the US tax profile immediately makes it clear that the US tax burden is not as low as one would think, the rub being that middle and working class people in the US are much more burdened by such costs. I had not thought about it this way before.
The authors provide lots of recommendations and are aware of the political contingencies surrounding tax reform. They also provide lots of online supporting materials, including a website with a tax simulator.
This is a relatively short but pithy book that will get a reader to think about tax policies and how they link to broader issues of inequality and political economy.
I had heard from various sources about this work and that it is the best work around right now linking economic theory, comprehensive analysis of available, international comparisons, and some actual wisdom in how to put it all together and say something. After working through it, I agree and highly recommend the book. The book requires some fortitude to work through, but there is no way to avoid it in serious discussions of taxes and global finance. It is not highly demanding, however and the authors do an excellent job at communicating some arcane material.
The book has insights and takeaways in every chapter. Among them include:
1) A nice review of the American tax context - who gets taxed on what and how the current situation of high inequality developed.
2) An explanation of tax dodging and tax evasion and what difference there is between them (less than you might think). This includes the industry that has arisen to advise clients on taxes.
3) A discussion of the international race to the bottom in national corporate tax rates.
4) A review of the evidence linking tax policies to national economic growth (or not). While there is much rhetoric on this, the evidence to back it up is thin.
5) A policy related discussion that emphasizes how there are no iron laws or immutable relations at play in tax policies. People made these policies and people can change them. Claims that changes in tax policy will bring about the end of the world are not well supported by evidence. Offshore earning could in principle be taxed, given a modicum of international cooperation.
6) A comparison between the US and different social welfare states to show how the US differed from Europe in terms of both taxes and the services provided for those taxes. The major differences are that on services like health care and education, while both are provided in the US in Europe, much more of the costs for health care and education are paid for privately in the US while they are paid for by the government in Europe. This makes them akin to privately paid taxes in the US. Including them in the US tax profile immediately makes it clear that the US tax burden is not as low as one would think, the rub being that middle and working class people in the US are much more burdened by such costs. I had not thought about it this way before.
The authors provide lots of recommendations and are aware of the political contingencies surrounding tax reform. They also provide lots of online supporting materials, including a website with a tax simulator.
This is a relatively short but pithy book that will get a reader to think about tax policies and how they link to broader issues of inequality and political economy.
February 13, 2024
This book is important and essential reading for folks seeking to understand wealth inequality and how wealth taxes and other forms of progressive taxation are an essential and non-negotiable part of the solution.
I’ve been meaning to read this book for a while, and jumped on the chance to buddy read it with a friend. I was already quite familiar with several of their arguments and data, but I still learned tons.
The book answers several important questions about inequality and provides clear and data-driven analysis and recommendations to have a more just society. How bad is inequality and how did we get here? Do the rich really pay less taxes than everyone else (spoiler : YES)? What are the mechanisms by which wealthy individuals and multinational corporations avoid taxes, and has it always been this way? What are concrete actionable solutions to these problems (Spoiler: solutions include a wealth taxes, and changes to how corporations are taxed)?
Maintaining growing and extreme wealth inequality is a choice, and we can make different choices. Are you in favour of the status quo, which involves increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few? If not, the solutions proposed in this book are a way out of this mess.
I’ve been meaning to read this book for a while, and jumped on the chance to buddy read it with a friend. I was already quite familiar with several of their arguments and data, but I still learned tons.
The book answers several important questions about inequality and provides clear and data-driven analysis and recommendations to have a more just society. How bad is inequality and how did we get here? Do the rich really pay less taxes than everyone else (spoiler : YES)? What are the mechanisms by which wealthy individuals and multinational corporations avoid taxes, and has it always been this way? What are concrete actionable solutions to these problems (Spoiler: solutions include a wealth taxes, and changes to how corporations are taxed)?
Maintaining growing and extreme wealth inequality is a choice, and we can make different choices. Are you in favour of the status quo, which involves increasing concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few? If not, the solutions proposed in this book are a way out of this mess.
May 14, 2021
Really loved this book. Easy to understand, concise but gave me enough information to clearly know the point of the chapter, and gave really good solutions to the problem of inequality in taxes. Highly recommend!!
October 19, 2020
Good economic analysis and history of taxation and its outcomes. Well researched and principled with good points. Can be boiled down to:
- inequality is worthwhile to solve for policy makers
- current taxes are flat/regressive in the US + Europe because labour is taxed more than capital. This can be fixed with taxing capital more, curbing tax evasion and anything against the economic substance doctrine (which is hard because there's an entire tax industry built around this), and a wealth tax. Healthcare in the US amount to a poll tax
- competing tax rates are unsustainable for globalization and a 0% corporate tax in countries such as Bermuda serves as a negative externality for other nations. Multinationals don't actually shift their assets to these areas, just paper profits.
- Trickle down economics has little supporting evidence in practice
- Growth of national income and its share for most has not risen since the 1980s
- inequality is worthwhile to solve for policy makers
- current taxes are flat/regressive in the US + Europe because labour is taxed more than capital. This can be fixed with taxing capital more, curbing tax evasion and anything against the economic substance doctrine (which is hard because there's an entire tax industry built around this), and a wealth tax. Healthcare in the US amount to a poll tax
- competing tax rates are unsustainable for globalization and a 0% corporate tax in countries such as Bermuda serves as a negative externality for other nations. Multinationals don't actually shift their assets to these areas, just paper profits.
- Trickle down economics has little supporting evidence in practice
- Growth of national income and its share for most has not risen since the 1980s
October 21, 2019
The book contains many impressive new findings on the distribution of the tax burden and some very good tax reform suggestions. It is written more for the general public than tax experts, but it would still have benefitted from fewer comments on current politics and more discussion on the assumptions they make.
December 1, 2023
Is this riveting? No, it’s a book about taxes. But is it engaging and readable? Surprisingly so!
I read this book for a new job as a tax journalist and having a slightly broader understanding of taxes helped with this book. But if you’re interested enough about a tax solution to inequality, you know enough that Saez and Zucman’s explanations will be accessible to you. That’s the real triumph here: they made taxes both accessible and interesting!
The way this book was structured was great, as well. Every time I thought of a possible argument against a point they were making, they would address it. The “solution” portion also read very clear eyed and, importantly to me, was concrete. A lot of “hey, this is a big problem book” that promises a solution of some sort then usually gets pretty wishy-washy for my tastes. This does not and instead provides a concrete path forward, if we’re able to galvanize a movement to do it.
I read this book for a new job as a tax journalist and having a slightly broader understanding of taxes helped with this book. But if you’re interested enough about a tax solution to inequality, you know enough that Saez and Zucman’s explanations will be accessible to you. That’s the real triumph here: they made taxes both accessible and interesting!
The way this book was structured was great, as well. Every time I thought of a possible argument against a point they were making, they would address it. The “solution” portion also read very clear eyed and, importantly to me, was concrete. A lot of “hey, this is a big problem book” that promises a solution of some sort then usually gets pretty wishy-washy for my tastes. This does not and instead provides a concrete path forward, if we’re able to galvanize a movement to do it.
February 18, 2020
In my review of Gabriel Zucman's "The Hidden Wealth of Nations," I commented that his treatment of corporate tax evasion through the use of offshore incorporation felt cursory, and I wished he would have given it a separate book. He hasn't done that exactly, but here, with co-author Emmanuel Saez, he treats the overall progressivity of the US tax system over time, very much including corporate taxation.
Saez and Zucman are both proteges of Thomas Piketty, and I have to say I think they have improved upon their master's approach. The general style is similar, with a heavy focus on careful collection of statistics that are not easily gathered from any one source, and little to no econometrics or mathematical modeling. Yet in place of Piketty's 700+-page tome, Saez and Zucman are producing very punchy sub-200-page super-papers that communicate a clear message: here, it is that the US tax system as a whole (considering income, consumption, corporate, payroll, and other taxes) is essentially a "flat tax" for the vast majority of the population, and actually becomes regressive at the very top (the richest pay a lower proportion of their income than the rest of us). This is a change since the 1980s, before which taxation was more progressive. Saez and Zucman put forward some good, dare I say common-sense, arguments for why taxing labor and capital at different rates exacerbates inequality, why the extent of tax avoidance/evasion is a choice that the government makes, and why extra-Laffer top marginal tax rates (higher than that which would maximize tax revenue) may be socially optimal. Alongside this, they have interesting discussions of tax incidence (who does the corporate tax really fall upon?), and the evolving role of value added taxes (VAT), which they find to be less desirable in a time of high inequality than they were in the more equal time and place in which they were first implemented.
Best of all, Saez and Zucman created a companion website (taxjusticenow.org) to allow the public to interact with their data and simulate the effects of different policy choices. This is a really creative move for a pair of academics, and even more than the conciseness of their book and clarity of their prose, opens up their findings to a much broader audience than those who'd be willing to read a Piketty-type tome.
I also felt frustrated while reading this book, not anything to do with Saez and Zucman themselves, but because of the clash with the US political situation. Although S&Z's policy proposals aren't bulletproof, they are thought-through ideas that struck me as feasible. It's sad to me, then, that most presidential candidates aren't talking about these types of policies, and even if they were, they would have zero chance of getting past the Senate--barring some significant upheaval of the status quo.
Saez and Zucman are both proteges of Thomas Piketty, and I have to say I think they have improved upon their master's approach. The general style is similar, with a heavy focus on careful collection of statistics that are not easily gathered from any one source, and little to no econometrics or mathematical modeling. Yet in place of Piketty's 700+-page tome, Saez and Zucman are producing very punchy sub-200-page super-papers that communicate a clear message: here, it is that the US tax system as a whole (considering income, consumption, corporate, payroll, and other taxes) is essentially a "flat tax" for the vast majority of the population, and actually becomes regressive at the very top (the richest pay a lower proportion of their income than the rest of us). This is a change since the 1980s, before which taxation was more progressive. Saez and Zucman put forward some good, dare I say common-sense, arguments for why taxing labor and capital at different rates exacerbates inequality, why the extent of tax avoidance/evasion is a choice that the government makes, and why extra-Laffer top marginal tax rates (higher than that which would maximize tax revenue) may be socially optimal. Alongside this, they have interesting discussions of tax incidence (who does the corporate tax really fall upon?), and the evolving role of value added taxes (VAT), which they find to be less desirable in a time of high inequality than they were in the more equal time and place in which they were first implemented.
Best of all, Saez and Zucman created a companion website (taxjusticenow.org) to allow the public to interact with their data and simulate the effects of different policy choices. This is a really creative move for a pair of academics, and even more than the conciseness of their book and clarity of their prose, opens up their findings to a much broader audience than those who'd be willing to read a Piketty-type tome.
I also felt frustrated while reading this book, not anything to do with Saez and Zucman themselves, but because of the clash with the US political situation. Although S&Z's policy proposals aren't bulletproof, they are thought-through ideas that struck me as feasible. It's sad to me, then, that most presidential candidates aren't talking about these types of policies, and even if they were, they would have zero chance of getting past the Senate--barring some significant upheaval of the status quo.
December 22, 2019
A must-read for anyone concerned about inequality in the USA (and for anyone who thinks inequality is not a concern, for that matter). Emmanuel Saez writes exceptionally well, and it is a surprisingly easy read for what should be a boring topic: taxation. The results from his detailed analysis and careful construction of data is shocking: the past three decades of growth have only benefited the top 1% of the US, and the income for the bottom half of the country was flat, or falling. AS a result inequality has sky-rocketed, pre-tax. But the most shocking statistics is how regressive taxation has become in the US - a complete reversal from the post-WWII decades where the top marginal tax rate was once over 90%! For the first time ever the average tax rate for the top 0.1% is *lower* than the rest of the population. The culprits? Corporate taxation. The rich get their money from owning capital, but the effective tax rate on capital is has shrunk over tume, due to sophisticated tax evasion and decreasing corporate tax rates.
Saez also makes a compelling case for how corporate profits can be taxed, even with creative accounting that allows global companies to book their profits in tax havens: Tax domestic companies a fixed fraction, irrespective of which country their taxes are reported in. Apple reported $10bn in profits in Ireland where the tax rate is 15%, but is domiciled in the US where tax rate is 30%? US government should take the remaining $1.5bn, so their effective tax rate remains 30%. He also convincingly argues that tax evasion is not inevitable, and that lowering corporate tax rates is not the only solution to capital flight: good legislation and strong enforcement can counter it.
His arguments for taxing capital at the same rate as income are compelling, for the purpose of reducing inequality and increasing government revenue. But the one short-coming is that he is too dismissive about the other reasons for lower corporate tax rates: stimulating savings and investment. There is a large theoretical literature on this, which he doesn't do any justice in the book. Nonetheless, the fact that the period of the fastest growth in the US (1948 - 1980) also coincided with a period of high corporate tax rates, does lend credence to his claim that other policies have a larger influence on savings and investment.
Saez also makes a compelling case for how corporate profits can be taxed, even with creative accounting that allows global companies to book their profits in tax havens: Tax domestic companies a fixed fraction, irrespective of which country their taxes are reported in. Apple reported $10bn in profits in Ireland where the tax rate is 15%, but is domiciled in the US where tax rate is 30%? US government should take the remaining $1.5bn, so their effective tax rate remains 30%. He also convincingly argues that tax evasion is not inevitable, and that lowering corporate tax rates is not the only solution to capital flight: good legislation and strong enforcement can counter it.
His arguments for taxing capital at the same rate as income are compelling, for the purpose of reducing inequality and increasing government revenue. But the one short-coming is that he is too dismissive about the other reasons for lower corporate tax rates: stimulating savings and investment. There is a large theoretical literature on this, which he doesn't do any justice in the book. Nonetheless, the fact that the period of the fastest growth in the US (1948 - 1980) also coincided with a period of high corporate tax rates, does lend credence to his claim that other policies have a larger influence on savings and investment.
December 24, 2019
This book presents a detailed and meticulously researched analysis of current tax policy in the United States and other modern economies, then suggests how such policies can be changed to support progressive revenue goals. As such it is likely to be largely ignored, which is too bad since it's well-written and clearly represents a lot of thought and effort by the authors.
There are a lot of numbers, quite a bit of economic analysis, and a good amount of public policy in this book. I'm enough of a math, economics, and political science nerd to enjoy wading my way through it all. If you'd rather get just the gist, I recommend this Pitchfork Economics podcast episode, where one of the authors (Zucman) discusses the big ideas. On the other hand, if you're really into the numbers, you can go to the book's companion website at taxjusticenow.org to see all the data and play with your own policy ideas.
As for the policy recommendations, it's pretty obvious from the book's title what they are. The tax systems in modern economies need to be more progressive, and need to be structured and enforced in ways that prevent tax dodging by the wealthy. Mainstream politics doesn't seriously address either component of that. On the right, we continue to see support for repeated tax cuts that benefit mostly the wealthy, despite decades of data showing how little this helps the economy and the non-wealthy majority of people. On the left, we see calls for increased rates or new kinds of wealth taxes, but very little of substance related to prevention of tax dodges and reforming of the current regressive tax policies.
The reason I say I expect this work to be largely ignored is that emotion matters more than policy in modern politics. Politicians are more interested in making their constituents feel good (and thus more likely to vote) than in acting in those constituents' best interests. The kind of major changes proposed by the authors will attract all sorts of fear-mongering attacks that won't make anyone feel better. Still worth reading the book and thinking about the concepts, though.
There are a lot of numbers, quite a bit of economic analysis, and a good amount of public policy in this book. I'm enough of a math, economics, and political science nerd to enjoy wading my way through it all. If you'd rather get just the gist, I recommend this Pitchfork Economics podcast episode, where one of the authors (Zucman) discusses the big ideas. On the other hand, if you're really into the numbers, you can go to the book's companion website at taxjusticenow.org to see all the data and play with your own policy ideas.
As for the policy recommendations, it's pretty obvious from the book's title what they are. The tax systems in modern economies need to be more progressive, and need to be structured and enforced in ways that prevent tax dodging by the wealthy. Mainstream politics doesn't seriously address either component of that. On the right, we continue to see support for repeated tax cuts that benefit mostly the wealthy, despite decades of data showing how little this helps the economy and the non-wealthy majority of people. On the left, we see calls for increased rates or new kinds of wealth taxes, but very little of substance related to prevention of tax dodges and reforming of the current regressive tax policies.
The reason I say I expect this work to be largely ignored is that emotion matters more than policy in modern politics. Politicians are more interested in making their constituents feel good (and thus more likely to vote) than in acting in those constituents' best interests. The kind of major changes proposed by the authors will attract all sorts of fear-mongering attacks that won't make anyone feel better. Still worth reading the book and thinking about the concepts, though.
May 25, 2020
This book is probably better than Piketty's Capital in the 21st Century. At least it is not as longwinded. :)
It is not simply a book about offshore. It's more about neoliberalism, inequalities, AND offshore. Kind of like a combination of the Piketty book and Zucman's Hidden Wealth of Nations.
It starts off by discussing how FDR actually had a very high top rate of PIT for a reason: to stop people from growing too rich to buy up a democracy. Which is exactly what happened one Reagan/Thatcher etc. lowered tax rates (capital, wealth, PIT, etc.) and enables tax dodgeing.
Then it discusses offshore. It actually offer very valuable practical advice on how countries COULD in fact reign in offshore even without internatioal cooperation. Key in this respect is the REMEDIAL TAX. Read more about it in the book.
All in all, a must read.
It is not simply a book about offshore. It's more about neoliberalism, inequalities, AND offshore. Kind of like a combination of the Piketty book and Zucman's Hidden Wealth of Nations.
It starts off by discussing how FDR actually had a very high top rate of PIT for a reason: to stop people from growing too rich to buy up a democracy. Which is exactly what happened one Reagan/Thatcher etc. lowered tax rates (capital, wealth, PIT, etc.) and enables tax dodgeing.
Then it discusses offshore. It actually offer very valuable practical advice on how countries COULD in fact reign in offshore even without internatioal cooperation. Key in this respect is the REMEDIAL TAX. Read more about it in the book.
All in all, a must read.
October 30, 2019
Well researched & well written explanation of how the rich pay proportionally much less tax than low earners
Thought provoking insights as to how the tax burden has shifted over the last 50 years from high net worth high earning individuals to the lower paid. I5 also explains how multinationals have used accounting and legal tricks to move profits to low tax jurisdictions. The real issue is that the wealthy control the power to change this but never will because they have so much to lose.
Thought provoking insights as to how the tax burden has shifted over the last 50 years from high net worth high earning individuals to the lower paid. I5 also explains how multinationals have used accounting and legal tricks to move profits to low tax jurisdictions. The real issue is that the wealthy control the power to change this but never will because they have so much to lose.
August 15, 2021
This was very good with a lot of solutions on how to fix the situation that we are in. The explanations were deep but still understandable. It was clear how income is not the main way the rich have assets and also how labour is more taxed than capital. So if you are rich you pay less, if you work you pay more, which has to change.
Read
October 19, 2019(I will be doing a longer review in the future and will link to it here.)
October 12, 2020
The authors are professors of economics at the University of California at Berkeley, and have the gift of writing in language that is understandable by the rest of us!
Their work is a clarion call for the restoration of a viable tax structure that will adequately fund the needs of the people of this nation, allowing us to enjoy a more equal and flourishing society. They provide both a devastating account of how the progressive tax system set up during the New Deal — and which continued through the 1970s — was systematically and intentionally dismantled beginning with Ronald Regan and worsened under the Trump administration, leaving the wealthy to reap the overwhelming rewards of the economy while reducing most of the rest of us to a stagnant wage system and a deteriorating public sphere.
They point out how the political class has worked hand-in-glove with the wealthiest Americans in this dismantling, all the while hiding under the guise of seeking “smaller government” and “ever-lower” taxes and using such misleading rhetoric as calling the estate tax the death tax.
This could not have happened without millions of Americans allowing themselves to be duped by swallowing the rhetoric while failing to “follow the money.” Among the predictable results was the entrenchment of an ever-more ideologically rigid right-wing minority in the state and federal legislatures as they had learned how to leverage the tax system (among other things) to perpetuate their hold on power even as they willingly funneled ever-larger amounts of money to the obscenely wealthy while starving health care, education, and infrastructure.
The answer, according to the authors, is to quickly move to:
O Reconstitute a truly progressive tax structure
O Levy a “wealth tax” of 60% on the greatest wealth (a wealth tax, not just an income tax)
O Work with other nations to clamp down on off-shore tax shelters
O Tax the corporate income of those businesses which seek to hide their assets by “locating” much of their principal operations in other countries
O Restore the staffing and funding of the Internal Revenue Service in order to be able to pursue and prosecute tax evaders, something which has been made increasingly difficult by Congress’ multi-year starving that agency of much-needed resources
They warn that because a truly democratic republic can not long survive without an adequate and just tax structure the matter for restoring progressive taxation is most urgent, indeed.
In their Introduction, the authors write, “The country’s tax system — the most important institution of any democratic society — [has] failed.
“We wrote this book with two objectives in mind: the first, to understand how exactly the United States got into this mess; the second, to help fix it.” (P. viii)
During the last several decades, “…for the working class, wages stagnated, work conditions deteriorated, debts ballooned, and taxes rose. Since 1980 the tax system has enriched the winners in the market economy and impoverished those who realized few rewards from economic growth.
“…Most of the changes in taxation are due not to a sudden popular appetite for exempting the wealthy, but to forces that have prevailed without input from voters…. The triumph of tax injustice is, above all, a denial of democracy.” (P. ix)
“Our story…is the story of how the tax system established by the New Deal was undermined. At each step of its demise, we find the same pattern. It starts with an outburst of tax avoidance. It continues with policy makers letting this tax avoidance fester, paralyzed by supposedly invincible foes — tax shelters, globalization, tax havens, financial opacity. And it ends with governments slashing the tax rates of the wealthy under the pretense that taxing the richest among us has become impossible.”
“Beyond America, our story is more fundamentally about the future of globalization and the future of democracy.” (P.x)
While written in accessible English, the book is packed with relevant data and helpful tables. I strongly recommend this book to all Americans who wish to better understand how we have “gone off the rails” on tax policy and what measures we should be taking to get us quickly — and equitably — back to health!
Their work is a clarion call for the restoration of a viable tax structure that will adequately fund the needs of the people of this nation, allowing us to enjoy a more equal and flourishing society. They provide both a devastating account of how the progressive tax system set up during the New Deal — and which continued through the 1970s — was systematically and intentionally dismantled beginning with Ronald Regan and worsened under the Trump administration, leaving the wealthy to reap the overwhelming rewards of the economy while reducing most of the rest of us to a stagnant wage system and a deteriorating public sphere.
They point out how the political class has worked hand-in-glove with the wealthiest Americans in this dismantling, all the while hiding under the guise of seeking “smaller government” and “ever-lower” taxes and using such misleading rhetoric as calling the estate tax the death tax.
This could not have happened without millions of Americans allowing themselves to be duped by swallowing the rhetoric while failing to “follow the money.” Among the predictable results was the entrenchment of an ever-more ideologically rigid right-wing minority in the state and federal legislatures as they had learned how to leverage the tax system (among other things) to perpetuate their hold on power even as they willingly funneled ever-larger amounts of money to the obscenely wealthy while starving health care, education, and infrastructure.
The answer, according to the authors, is to quickly move to:
O Reconstitute a truly progressive tax structure
O Levy a “wealth tax” of 60% on the greatest wealth (a wealth tax, not just an income tax)
O Work with other nations to clamp down on off-shore tax shelters
O Tax the corporate income of those businesses which seek to hide their assets by “locating” much of their principal operations in other countries
O Restore the staffing and funding of the Internal Revenue Service in order to be able to pursue and prosecute tax evaders, something which has been made increasingly difficult by Congress’ multi-year starving that agency of much-needed resources
They warn that because a truly democratic republic can not long survive without an adequate and just tax structure the matter for restoring progressive taxation is most urgent, indeed.
In their Introduction, the authors write, “The country’s tax system — the most important institution of any democratic society — [has] failed.
“We wrote this book with two objectives in mind: the first, to understand how exactly the United States got into this mess; the second, to help fix it.” (P. viii)
During the last several decades, “…for the working class, wages stagnated, work conditions deteriorated, debts ballooned, and taxes rose. Since 1980 the tax system has enriched the winners in the market economy and impoverished those who realized few rewards from economic growth.
“…Most of the changes in taxation are due not to a sudden popular appetite for exempting the wealthy, but to forces that have prevailed without input from voters…. The triumph of tax injustice is, above all, a denial of democracy.” (P. ix)
“Our story…is the story of how the tax system established by the New Deal was undermined. At each step of its demise, we find the same pattern. It starts with an outburst of tax avoidance. It continues with policy makers letting this tax avoidance fester, paralyzed by supposedly invincible foes — tax shelters, globalization, tax havens, financial opacity. And it ends with governments slashing the tax rates of the wealthy under the pretense that taxing the richest among us has become impossible.”
“Beyond America, our story is more fundamentally about the future of globalization and the future of democracy.” (P.x)
While written in accessible English, the book is packed with relevant data and helpful tables. I strongly recommend this book to all Americans who wish to better understand how we have “gone off the rails” on tax policy and what measures we should be taking to get us quickly — and equitably — back to health!
April 18, 2020
Often, I’ll read a political or policy non-fiction that seeks to either place blame on today’s problems on some group, or contextualize our problems with a history lesson, or both. Recent examples on the right are “The Age of Entitlement”, “The Decadent Society”, “Coming Apart”, and “How Do I Tax Thee?”. On the left, “Why We’re Polarized”, “Us Vs Them”, “The Once and Future Liberal”, and “Goliath”. In the center, “The Big Sort”, “American Carnage”, and “America’s Bitter Pill”. These authors will inevitably save their opinion on “what can be done” for a brief closing chapter. Far rarer is a book like “The Triumph of Injustice”, which almost takes the problem for granted, and instead focuses on corrective policy recommendations.
Granted, this is a very left-leaning book. There are quite a few unfair characterizations, and not every idea is well thought out. One example of an unfair characterization: Saez and Zucman brand social security taxes as “deeply regressive”, which of course is true by definition. But aren’t the benefits they endow similarly progressive? I discuss on not-well-thought-out idea of theirs later.
But characterizations are the stocking horse of polemicists, and fortunately there is far more substance in this book than mere ad hominem. My favorite problem and solution Saez and Zucman address is that of corporate tax avoidance of multi-nationals.
Today, most multi-national corporations take advantage of a 100-year-old loophole in our tax law that states “any subsidiaries of a multi-national firm should be treated as separate entities”. The US can only tax multi-nationals for the profits earned domestically, expecting that these corporations are paying similar income taxes abroad. What has happened, of course, is some countries woo them with low- to zero-corporate income taxes. Then, corporations shift profit abroad by having the foreign subsidiary own intangible assets which they charge the parent for the use of. As an example, Apple Ireland can own the Apple logo and brand, then charge the US parent for the right to that brand, which the US parent can net against their US revenues to minimize their US profits. This exercise is known as “transfer pricing” and the work employs a quarter million pencil pushers in the US, mostly in Big Four accounting firms and law firms.
Saez and Zucman fail to mention that repatriation of capital from a foreign sub to the domestic parent is a taxable event, a nuance that I suppose doesn’t favor their argument. Regardless, the net effect of this is to have cut US corporate tax revenue as a percentage of US National Income to a quarter of what it was in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Close to 60% of profits made by US multinationals abroad are booked in foreign countries (the authors don’t say over what period this was the case).
Saez and Zucman’s solution is very smart, and relatively easy to implement. Countries should agree to harmonize to a “minimum tax threshold” of 25%. If a country is taxing a subsidiary below that threshold, the country where the parent is domiciled will charge additional income tax to catch up the difference. So, if Ireland is charging Apple a 12.5% corporate income tax, the US can charge an incremental 12.5% to Apple to catch up the difference. Ireland, not wanting to leave money on the table, will be incented to harmonize their rates. By Saez and Zucman’s reckoning, this idea doesn’t violate any international treaty, and countries are already collecting enough data from multi-nationals to make this of no additional expense to the companies.
While a more balanced income tax is important, Saez and Zucman also advocate for more expansive wealth taxes. I hadn’t realized it, but there is a very common wealth tax today, which hits the middle class hardest: property taxes. My priors were that expanding the wealth tax base was exceedingly difficult, due to inescapable disagreement on the value of capital assets, like privately held businesses.
One inherent problem in taxing privately held corporate wealth is assigning a valuation to those businesses. Valuation is exceptionally subjective, and if this would require an expansion of 409(A) valuations, then I’m not optimistic it would be particularly fair or effective.
Saez and Zucman’s solution sounds smart, but would create a number of unfair consequences. Give private equity owners the option to sell shares of the business to the IRS as an optional means of paying the wealth tax. If they disagree with the IRS valuation, it would be because the IRS valued the business too high, and they should be happy to sell such an inflated stake in the business. The IRS would then turn around and sell those shares in a public market, which would then correctly price those shares for the next cycle, perhaps the following quarter.
The problem with this solution is selling the shares to the wider market. Publicly traded corporations take on a sizeable cost to their operations by preparing audited financial statements. Would these now become a requirement for privately held businesses? Further, privately held businesses benefit strategically from not sharing their financial information with the broader market. This advantage disappears with this requirement.
Could this solution still be put in place without the subsequent IRS sales to public market? Perhaps, but then the state would be accruing more and more ownership of the private sector. What happens when they own enough of private businesses for a controlling share?
Saez and Zucman’s intention is to limit the consolidation of wealth in capital. But a capitalist critique is that such capital is putting other people and assets to work, driving the economy. Perhaps a sensible compromise is to tax “idle” capital or wealth? Any business that is sitting on unrestricted cash greater than some threshold percentage of the total net assets must pay a wealth tax on that cash? This would incentivize corporations to either return the cash to their shareholders in the form of dividends, or invest that capital back into operations.
Of course, what has happened recently is that businesses, presumably not seeing any good enough investment opportunities, are instead just buying back shares. One interesting aside is that share buybacks were illegal in the US before 1982! That sounds like a smart policy and worthy of returning to.
I suppose any positive policy recommendation is going to come with problems. As a reader, I give far more credit to authors attempting to pose a solution than those who just continue to point out problems. Even if I don’t think everything in this book would work or is a good idea, it’s still a relief to read.
Granted, this is a very left-leaning book. There are quite a few unfair characterizations, and not every idea is well thought out. One example of an unfair characterization: Saez and Zucman brand social security taxes as “deeply regressive”, which of course is true by definition. But aren’t the benefits they endow similarly progressive? I discuss on not-well-thought-out idea of theirs later.
But characterizations are the stocking horse of polemicists, and fortunately there is far more substance in this book than mere ad hominem. My favorite problem and solution Saez and Zucman address is that of corporate tax avoidance of multi-nationals.
Today, most multi-national corporations take advantage of a 100-year-old loophole in our tax law that states “any subsidiaries of a multi-national firm should be treated as separate entities”. The US can only tax multi-nationals for the profits earned domestically, expecting that these corporations are paying similar income taxes abroad. What has happened, of course, is some countries woo them with low- to zero-corporate income taxes. Then, corporations shift profit abroad by having the foreign subsidiary own intangible assets which they charge the parent for the use of. As an example, Apple Ireland can own the Apple logo and brand, then charge the US parent for the right to that brand, which the US parent can net against their US revenues to minimize their US profits. This exercise is known as “transfer pricing” and the work employs a quarter million pencil pushers in the US, mostly in Big Four accounting firms and law firms.
Saez and Zucman fail to mention that repatriation of capital from a foreign sub to the domestic parent is a taxable event, a nuance that I suppose doesn’t favor their argument. Regardless, the net effect of this is to have cut US corporate tax revenue as a percentage of US National Income to a quarter of what it was in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Close to 60% of profits made by US multinationals abroad are booked in foreign countries (the authors don’t say over what period this was the case).
Saez and Zucman’s solution is very smart, and relatively easy to implement. Countries should agree to harmonize to a “minimum tax threshold” of 25%. If a country is taxing a subsidiary below that threshold, the country where the parent is domiciled will charge additional income tax to catch up the difference. So, if Ireland is charging Apple a 12.5% corporate income tax, the US can charge an incremental 12.5% to Apple to catch up the difference. Ireland, not wanting to leave money on the table, will be incented to harmonize their rates. By Saez and Zucman’s reckoning, this idea doesn’t violate any international treaty, and countries are already collecting enough data from multi-nationals to make this of no additional expense to the companies.
While a more balanced income tax is important, Saez and Zucman also advocate for more expansive wealth taxes. I hadn’t realized it, but there is a very common wealth tax today, which hits the middle class hardest: property taxes. My priors were that expanding the wealth tax base was exceedingly difficult, due to inescapable disagreement on the value of capital assets, like privately held businesses.
One inherent problem in taxing privately held corporate wealth is assigning a valuation to those businesses. Valuation is exceptionally subjective, and if this would require an expansion of 409(A) valuations, then I’m not optimistic it would be particularly fair or effective.
Saez and Zucman’s solution sounds smart, but would create a number of unfair consequences. Give private equity owners the option to sell shares of the business to the IRS as an optional means of paying the wealth tax. If they disagree with the IRS valuation, it would be because the IRS valued the business too high, and they should be happy to sell such an inflated stake in the business. The IRS would then turn around and sell those shares in a public market, which would then correctly price those shares for the next cycle, perhaps the following quarter.
The problem with this solution is selling the shares to the wider market. Publicly traded corporations take on a sizeable cost to their operations by preparing audited financial statements. Would these now become a requirement for privately held businesses? Further, privately held businesses benefit strategically from not sharing their financial information with the broader market. This advantage disappears with this requirement.
Could this solution still be put in place without the subsequent IRS sales to public market? Perhaps, but then the state would be accruing more and more ownership of the private sector. What happens when they own enough of private businesses for a controlling share?
Saez and Zucman’s intention is to limit the consolidation of wealth in capital. But a capitalist critique is that such capital is putting other people and assets to work, driving the economy. Perhaps a sensible compromise is to tax “idle” capital or wealth? Any business that is sitting on unrestricted cash greater than some threshold percentage of the total net assets must pay a wealth tax on that cash? This would incentivize corporations to either return the cash to their shareholders in the form of dividends, or invest that capital back into operations.
Of course, what has happened recently is that businesses, presumably not seeing any good enough investment opportunities, are instead just buying back shares. One interesting aside is that share buybacks were illegal in the US before 1982! That sounds like a smart policy and worthy of returning to.
I suppose any positive policy recommendation is going to come with problems. As a reader, I give far more credit to authors attempting to pose a solution than those who just continue to point out problems. Even if I don’t think everything in this book would work or is a good idea, it’s still a relief to read.
December 7, 2019
This book really helped me to better understand the history and opportunities of tax policy.
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 tax revolt was intended to free Americans from burdensome taxation. Those policies dramatically reduced taxes, but unfortunately, just for one group of Americans - the rich. The author tells a fascinating story of how the most anticipated tax reform movement in recent history transferred a big tax burden on to middle and lower class Americans.
Reagan’s vilification of all forms of taxation transformed tax avoidance into an patriotic act. Paying taxes was no longer an uncomfortable but necessary act of civic duty; it was now a great evil oppressing the nation. It was every American’s duty to fight any form of taxation.
This new narrative marked the beginning of an explosion of tax cheating and tax avoidance. Prior to this time, most of the rich begrudgingly paid the high tax rates demanded of them. It was considered every American’s obligation. But Reagan’s tax revolution marked the birth of an accounting metamorphosis and the take-no-prisoners tax avoidance insurrection. Offshore tax sheltering, corporate shell companies and other forms of gymnastic accounting soared to prominence. Paying taxes was for suckers.
The first part of Saez’s book chronicles this perfidious transformation. He reveals the ingenious playbook used by accounting rockstars, CFOs and lobbyist to quietly morph America’s tax policy, moving the burden on to the less financially sophisticated - middle and working class people. He chronicles the story of this “greed is good” devolution and how it has shaped the taxation policies we live with today. In the 19th century the super rich (Getty, Carnegie, etc) were seen as robber barons. Today they’re rock stars.
Saez does a great job of explaining the whack-a-mole tax avoidance strategies of corporate offshoring and the deviously clever ways gigantic profits are safely harbored in a few poor countries desperate for economic relief.
The second part of the book was even more interesting. Saez provides a wonderfully approachable explanation on who foots the bill on different forms of taxation. He lays out who pays what on capital gains, labor taxes, flat taxes and all the myriad forms of taxation that have been tried throughout the ages and around the world.
Finally, he lays out a pretty solid plan of action for tax reform. It actually seems like something that might work.
This book gave me some real hope that intractable problems like tax reform might be solvable. No question, it will take tremendous political will to achieve but the good news is there appears to be a way forward.
Ronald Reagan’s 1980 tax revolt was intended to free Americans from burdensome taxation. Those policies dramatically reduced taxes, but unfortunately, just for one group of Americans - the rich. The author tells a fascinating story of how the most anticipated tax reform movement in recent history transferred a big tax burden on to middle and lower class Americans.
Reagan’s vilification of all forms of taxation transformed tax avoidance into an patriotic act. Paying taxes was no longer an uncomfortable but necessary act of civic duty; it was now a great evil oppressing the nation. It was every American’s duty to fight any form of taxation.
This new narrative marked the beginning of an explosion of tax cheating and tax avoidance. Prior to this time, most of the rich begrudgingly paid the high tax rates demanded of them. It was considered every American’s obligation. But Reagan’s tax revolution marked the birth of an accounting metamorphosis and the take-no-prisoners tax avoidance insurrection. Offshore tax sheltering, corporate shell companies and other forms of gymnastic accounting soared to prominence. Paying taxes was for suckers.
The first part of Saez’s book chronicles this perfidious transformation. He reveals the ingenious playbook used by accounting rockstars, CFOs and lobbyist to quietly morph America’s tax policy, moving the burden on to the less financially sophisticated - middle and working class people. He chronicles the story of this “greed is good” devolution and how it has shaped the taxation policies we live with today. In the 19th century the super rich (Getty, Carnegie, etc) were seen as robber barons. Today they’re rock stars.
Saez does a great job of explaining the whack-a-mole tax avoidance strategies of corporate offshoring and the deviously clever ways gigantic profits are safely harbored in a few poor countries desperate for economic relief.
The second part of the book was even more interesting. Saez provides a wonderfully approachable explanation on who foots the bill on different forms of taxation. He lays out who pays what on capital gains, labor taxes, flat taxes and all the myriad forms of taxation that have been tried throughout the ages and around the world.
Finally, he lays out a pretty solid plan of action for tax reform. It actually seems like something that might work.
This book gave me some real hope that intractable problems like tax reform might be solvable. No question, it will take tremendous political will to achieve but the good news is there appears to be a way forward.
April 27, 2021
This book’s message – in a nutshell – is that the American tax system is grossly unfair – taxing the bottom half of the income spectrum heavily, while coddling the hyper-wealthy .1%. And, according to the authors, drastic measures are necessary to correct the problem.
The book’s argument is based on extensive data that the authors collected for the last century. (Lots of graphs and numbers. No anecdotes except for Donald Trump in 2016 saying he didn’t pay taxes because “I’m smart.”)
In the authors’ view, the tax system was reasonably fair from about the 1930s to the 1970s. (The tax period that the Wall Street Journal calls demented.) Since then, it has become more and more unfair. The authors say this has happened in a bipartisan way – among other politicians, both President Ronald Reagan and Senator Joe Biden helped it go bad.
The authors divide all income into two classes: income in the form of wages and income from capital. The crux of the authors’ arguments is that the lower 50% make almost all their income from wages, which are out in the open and easily taxed, while the upper 1% make most of their income from capital. The authors say that income from capital is very slippery and hard to tax, so that the upper 1% and especially the top .1% do not pay their fair share. In between the bottom half and the wealthy are the upper middle class and the merely affluent, who get part of their income from wages, and part from capital.
In the authors’ view, the main reason that people making capital income are not taxed fairly is simply because the corporations that these people own are not taxed fairly. U.S. taxes are too low, and also corporations can avoid taxes by using phony subsidiaries in “tax haven” countries with almost zero tax rates. The corporations do not pay fair taxes, so their owners – the shareholders – get more money than they deserve. This is essentially the brutal statement that the book makes.
Oh, and a minor point. Why doesn’t this book have an index? Couldn’t the authors get a grad student to put one together?
The book’s argument is based on extensive data that the authors collected for the last century. (Lots of graphs and numbers. No anecdotes except for Donald Trump in 2016 saying he didn’t pay taxes because “I’m smart.”)
In the authors’ view, the tax system was reasonably fair from about the 1930s to the 1970s. (The tax period that the Wall Street Journal calls demented.) Since then, it has become more and more unfair. The authors say this has happened in a bipartisan way – among other politicians, both President Ronald Reagan and Senator Joe Biden helped it go bad.
The authors divide all income into two classes: income in the form of wages and income from capital. The crux of the authors’ arguments is that the lower 50% make almost all their income from wages, which are out in the open and easily taxed, while the upper 1% make most of their income from capital. The authors say that income from capital is very slippery and hard to tax, so that the upper 1% and especially the top .1% do not pay their fair share. In between the bottom half and the wealthy are the upper middle class and the merely affluent, who get part of their income from wages, and part from capital.
In the authors’ view, the main reason that people making capital income are not taxed fairly is simply because the corporations that these people own are not taxed fairly. U.S. taxes are too low, and also corporations can avoid taxes by using phony subsidiaries in “tax haven” countries with almost zero tax rates. The corporations do not pay fair taxes, so their owners – the shareholders – get more money than they deserve. This is essentially the brutal statement that the book makes.
Oh, and a minor point. Why doesn’t this book have an index? Couldn’t the authors get a grad student to put one together?
January 12, 2020
The authors have made significant contributions to our understanding of the causes and effects of income and wealth inequality. This book is a continuation of that important work.
The role of government tax policy since Reagan has transformed America. The county of my youth (1st grade in the last year of the Eisenhower Administration) had high marginal tax rates for high incomes, strong growth, and limited tax game-playing. Whilst there were serious societal problems (most notably, deplorable racial prejudices), limited income and wealth inequality contributed to a broader sense of community and comity lacking in today’s economic and political environment. Causes? The authors present a compelling explanation: changes in tax policy and the explosion of tax game playing driving fundamental transformation in the relative income shares of capital v. labor, and income/wealth distribution, which have resulted in America becoming trapped in an accelerating spiral of intensifying economic inequality and political polarization.
The later chapters discuss how to reverse the rot. Good ideas. Their practicality (unless Bernie wins and the Democrats control Congress) questionable, sadly.
A worthwhile read. Just don’t get too depressed by the numbers!!
The role of government tax policy since Reagan has transformed America. The county of my youth (1st grade in the last year of the Eisenhower Administration) had high marginal tax rates for high incomes, strong growth, and limited tax game-playing. Whilst there were serious societal problems (most notably, deplorable racial prejudices), limited income and wealth inequality contributed to a broader sense of community and comity lacking in today’s economic and political environment. Causes? The authors present a compelling explanation: changes in tax policy and the explosion of tax game playing driving fundamental transformation in the relative income shares of capital v. labor, and income/wealth distribution, which have resulted in America becoming trapped in an accelerating spiral of intensifying economic inequality and political polarization.
The later chapters discuss how to reverse the rot. Good ideas. Their practicality (unless Bernie wins and the Democrats control Congress) questionable, sadly.
A worthwhile read. Just don’t get too depressed by the numbers!!
December 22, 2019
The book is mostly a critique on American income tax (flat rate), and a call for a more progressive system. Like Picketty, but with less raw data and less globalist.
I picked up this book thinking that it would have all sorts of clever/dastardly ways in which rich people hide their money (e.g. investing in opportunity development zones), but it was very vanilla (hire Big 4 accountants, incorporate as offshore companies for marginal cost).
I picked up this book thinking that it would have all sorts of clever/dastardly ways in which rich people hide their money (e.g. investing in opportunity development zones), but it was very vanilla (hire Big 4 accountants, incorporate as offshore companies for marginal cost).
August 15, 2022
The site created by the author: taxjusticenow.org
The site is a simulator of different scenarios regarding taxes - what kinds and how to apply them.
It's a little too technical and hard to follow at times - maybe because I'm not an economist. However, I do get the feeling that economics is not as close to hard sciences as I would like it to be.
I listened to this as an audiobook. Audiobooks are not optimal as a format for this book, because it gets a little too technical.
The site is a simulator of different scenarios regarding taxes - what kinds and how to apply them.
It's a little too technical and hard to follow at times - maybe because I'm not an economist. However, I do get the feeling that economics is not as close to hard sciences as I would like it to be.
I listened to this as an audiobook. Audiobooks are not optimal as a format for this book, because it gets a little too technical.
December 2, 2019
Brilliant data driven investigation of inequality
Focused investigation using national income to see just how surprisingly regressive the US tax code is. Stark reminder that tax justice is a decision, and injustice is in no way unavoidable in a globalized world.
Focused investigation using national income to see just how surprisingly regressive the US tax code is. Stark reminder that tax justice is a decision, and injustice is in no way unavoidable in a globalized world.
July 4, 2025
"We're still far from being able to perfectly predict the effect of taxes on inequality, but this is no reason not to try our best."
if you want to be mad read this book
https://taxjusticenow.org/
if you want to be mad read this book
https://taxjusticenow.org/
Read
December 12, 2024STEUERGERECHTIGKEIT JETZT!
Welche Arten von Steuern gibt es ? Welche Funktionen erfüllen Steuern? Wie haben sie sich in der Vergangenheit entwickelt, und sind die Spitzen-und Grenzsteuersätze heute höher oder niedriger als sie das früher gewesen sind ? Wie hoch sind die Steuern heute, und sollten sie höher sein ? Wie sinnvoll ist eine Vermögensteuer eigentlich ? Auf all diese und noch einige andere Fragen gehen die beiden französischen Wirtschaftswissenschaftler und Kollegen vom Bestseller-Autor Thomas Piketty in diesem Buch eine Antwort. Genauer gesagt, handelt es sich bei dem vorliegenden Buch um eine Analyse des US-Amerikanischen Steuersystems. Die Entwicklung der Steuern in den Vereinigten Staaten, besonders über das 20. Jahrhundert hinweg, wird mit den heute dort vorherrschenden Steuern und Steuersätzen verglichen, und die Auswirkungen der Steuersätze auf das (Netto)Nationaleinkommen sowie die Verteilung desselben auf die verschiedenen Gesellschaftsklassen untersucht. Das Ergebnis ? Obwohl sich Konservative, häufig besonders Republikanische, Ökonomen und Politiker gerne auf das Mantra berufen, dass Steuern "unamerikanisch" seien und ein Eingriff in die persönliche Freiheit des einzelnen Bürgers, waren die Vereinigten Staaten Vorreiter in der Besteuerung ihrer Bevölkerung, und die "Exzessiven Steuern" die in der Vergangenheit in den Vereinigten Staaten erhoben wurden, galten niemals für die Mittelschicht, sondern allein für die absoluten Spitzenverdiener.
Zusammenfassung:
Zu Beginn unterteilen die beiden Ökonomen die in den Vereinigten Staaten vorherrschenden Steuern in Vier Klassen: Einkommenssteuern, Lohnsteuern, Kapitalsteuern und Vebrauchsteuern, um dann den Gegenwert in Prozent des (Netto)Nationaleinkommens darzulegen, den diese Steuern generieren. Gleich zu Beginn wird dabei auf die extreme Regressivität des Steuersystem aufmerksam gemacht. Aufgrund von seit den 80er Jahren durchgeführten Steuerreformen und einem extremen Anstieg der Steuervermeidung sind heute nicht nur viele Einkommensarten und Konsumausgaben entweder Steuerbefreit (wie beispielsweise thesaurierte Unternehmensgewinne, Dividenden und Zinsen aus Pensionskonten, oder persönliche Dienstleistungen wie ein Besuch in der Oper oder die Mitgliedschaft in einem Country Club etc.) sondern diejenigen Steuern die auf solche Einkommen erhoben werden, die hauptsächlich von der Oberschicht bezogen werden, unterliegen zudem niedrigeren Steuersätzen als sie das früher taten. Unter Trump wurde beispielweise die Körperschaftssteuer von 35 auf 21 Prozent gesenkt, eine Tendenz die auch in anderen Ländern wie Frankreich, Ungarn, Großbritannien etc. zu verzeichnen ist und die als ein Symptom des seit einigen Jahren grassierenden Steuerunterbietungswettbewerbs angesehen werden muss. Das Ergebnis ist eine Gesamtwirtschaftliche Kopfsteuer die gegen Ende regressiv wird. Während die Steuern die Lohnempfänger treffen, wie die Beiträge zur staatlichen Rentenversicherung und die Beiträge für Medicare, seit den 50er Jahren enorm angestiegen sind (von 3 auf ca 15 Prozent), sind in den letzten 40 Jahren die Steuern auf Kapitalerträge stark gesunken. Daraus ergibt sich, dass der Anteil den die unteren 50 Prozent am Nationaleinkommen zu verbuchen haben seit den 80er Jahren mit dem Anteil den das oberste eine Prozent an Demselben zu verbuchen hat, gewechselt ist, sodass heute 20 Prozent des Nationaleinkommens vor Steuern auf das oberste Prozent, und nur ca 12 Prozent auf das der unteren 50 Prozent zurückgeführt werden kann. Im zweiten und dritten Kapitel wird auf die amerikanische Steuergeschichte eingegangen und untersucht, was genau an dem Mantra "Steuern sind unamerikanisch, Amerikaner hassen Steuern" eigentlich dran ist. Das Ergebnis ? Nicht Viel. Die Vereinigten Staaten waren bereits im 17. Jahrhundert mit einer moderneren Form der Vermögensbesteuerung in den nördlichen Kolonien Vorreiter in Sachen Besteuerung, und das hat sich im 20. Jahrhundert nicht geändert. Bereits zu Beginn des Zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts wurde unter Woodrow Wilson eine extrem progressive Vermögensbesteuerung eingeführt, die unter Franklin D. Roosevelt nur noch weiter verschärft wurde. Letzterer hat ebenso die bereits von Herbert Hoover eingeführte progressive Vermögensbesteuerung in Form einer Nachlasssteuer fortgeführt. Die extrem hohen Spitzensätze bei der Einkommensbesteuerung die bei den höchsten Einkommen in einem heutigen Gegenwert von Ca 6 Millionen Dollar oder mehr im Jahr eingesetzt haben, lagen zwischenzeitlich bei über 90 Prozent, und der durchschnittliche Effektive Steuersatz für die obersten 0,1 Prozent lag in den Jahren zwischen Roosevelt und Reagan bei Ca 55 Prozent. Die Autoren machen dabei auf die unterschiedlichen Zwecke der Körperschaftssteuer und der Persönlichen Einkommenssteuer aufmerksam, wie auch darauf, dass die extrem starke Besteuerung der persönlichen Einkommen von einem Anstieg der Prozente begleitet wurde, die die Mittel und Unterschicht am Nationaleinkommen zu verzeichnen hatten, wie auch mit einer durchschnittlichen Gesamtwirtschaftlichen Wachstumsrate, die größer gewesen ist, als die in den letzten 40 Jahren (Kapitel 8). Am Ende steht dabei fest, dass es nicht, wie uns Ökonomen, Unternehmer oder konservative Politiker gerne glauben machen wollen, die Amerikanische Mittelschicht ist, die von einer Einkommenssteuer am meisten betroffen ist, sondern besonders die reiche Oberschicht es gewesen ist, die durch eine progressive und hohe Einkommenssteuer besonders getroffen wurde. Im dritten Kapitel wird die auf die Steuerreform Reagans folgende grassierende Welle an Steuerhinterziehung aufmerksam gemacht, die durch eine, sich während der Verbreitung der Ideologie des "Konsens von Washington" entwickelnde, Steuervermeidungsindustrie in Gang gesetzt wurde. Die Steuerreformen senkten trotz niedrigerer Steuersätze entgegen der Erwartungen der Ökonomen die Steuervermeidung nicht, vielmehr sahen sich Steuerkanzleien und Anwälte nun politisch in ihrem Vorhaben bestätigt, und es entstanden eine Reihe von neuen Methoden zur Vermeidung und Hinterziehung von Steuern (ZB. Scheinpartnerschaften oder Investments in Offshore-Firmen auf den niederländischen Antillen). Damit einher ging ein Rückgang der Steuervollziehung. Der IRS, der sowieso viel weniger Ressourcen zur Verfügung hat, als die Steuervermeidungsbranche, prüfte 1975 beispielsweise noch 65 Prozent der größten Nachlasssteuererklärungen, 2018 jedoch nur noch 8,6 Prozent. Darauf ist auch der Rückgang der Einnahmen aus derselben von 0,2 Prozent des Nettovermögens privater Haushalte (1970er) auf 0,03 Prozent (also um das fünffache!) (2018) zurückzuführen. Im Vierten Kapitel gehen die Autoren auf das, seit den 80er Jahren um ein vielfaches zugenommene, Phänomen der Gewinnverschiebung von Buchgewinnen in Offshore-Bankkonten und Firmen ein, und erläutern dies anhand mehrerer Beispiele. Das Problem der Konzerninternen Transaktionen wird am Beispiel von Google beleuchtet. Ganz besonders problematisch ist hierbei, dass der Verkauf von Patenten, Logos und Dienstleistungen, die nicht öffentlich beobachtbar zu einem bestimmten Marktpreis gehandelt werden, innerhalb von Mutter und Tochterunternehmen nicht unter den Fremdvergleichungsgrundsatz fallen und somit die Rechte an Logos, Dienstleistungen und Patenten an in Irland oder auf den Bermudas ansässige Tochterunternehmen zu einem Spottpreis verkauft werden, damit dann die in Hochsteuerländern ansässigen Tochterunternehmen Lizenzgebühren für die Nutzung der Patente und Logos an das in den den Steueroasen ansässige Schwesterunternehmen zahlen, die dort ohne Steuern als Buchgewinne registriert, und hier als Gebühren vom Gewinn abgezogen werden können, um die Steuerbasis zu reduzieren. Im Endeffekt verlieren also die Hochsteuerländer einen Teil ihrer Steuereinnahmen, was einerseits auf ein veraltetes Steuerrechtssystem, andererseits auf die neue Steuerumgehungsindustrie, und wiederum andererseits darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass, besonders kleine Staaten, extrem niedrige Steuersätze oder gar keine Steuern im eigenen Land dulden, weil sie geringe Gebühren auf all die Gewinne anrechnen, die sonst gar nicht erst in ihr Land verschoben worden wären. Es ist hierbei wichtig zu bemerken, dass es entgegen der von einigen Globalisierungsgegnern vorgebrachten Argumentation nicht ein "kluger Schachzug" der Unternehmen ist, die primär ihr Kapital in Form von Anlagevermögen ins Ausland verschieben um die dort niedrigeren Steuern wahrzunehmen, sondern dass statt Fabriken vorwiegend Buchgewinne ins Ausland abgeführt werden. Im fünften Kapitel, setzen Saez und Zucman sich einerseits mit der privaten Krankenversicherung auseinander die von den Autoren als eine "Quasi-Steuer" verstanden wird, da sie zwar nicht direkt vom Staat selbst erhoben wird, allerdings gesetzlich verpflichtend ist. Berechnet man diese Beträge, die in den meisten Fällen auf Arbeitseinkommen vermittelst des Arbeitgebers angerechnet werden, mit ein, sieht man, dass der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Steuersatz auf Arbeit, der 1950 noch um fast 20 Prozent niedriger ausfiel als der auf Kapitalerträge, heute um beinahe 10 Prozent höher liegt als derselbige. Im selbigen Kapitel räumen die beiden Wissenschaftler auch anhand historischer Daten mit der heute immer noch gelehrten These auf, dass eine hohe Kapitalbesteuerung (Körperschaftssteuer, Steuer auf Dividenden etc.) die Investitionsquote oder Sparquote senken und somit indirekt die Produktivität und das Lohnniveau senken würden. Die Daten stützen weder die oft behauptete "Elastizität" des Kapitals noch den Rückgang des Lohnniveaus im Zuge einer hohen Unternehmensbesteuerung. Im Gegenteil. Politische Anreize zur Investition, wie beispielsweise eine Staatliche Förderungen der Vergabe von Hypotheken oder gesetzliche Bestimmungen zur Ermutigung von der Vergabe Kapitalgedeckter Altersvorsorgen durch den Arbeitgeber hatten in der Vergangenheit mehr Einfluss auf die Spar-und Investitionsquoten als Steuerpolitische Anreize. Angemerkt wird hierbei noch, dass eine niedrige Körperschaftsbesteuerung Anreize dazu gibt, persönliches Einkommen in Unternehmensgewinne umzuwandeln und so die persönliche Einkommenssteuer zu untergraben. Im sechsten, und vielleicht wichtigsten Kapitel, werden Vorschläge zur Verhinderung der Steuervermeidung auf Internationaler Ebene vorgebracht. Ausgehend von dem, durch den "Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act" unter Obama hervorgebrachten, verstärkten Austausch von Informationen zwischen den Finanzinstituten auf Internationaler Ebene, fordern die Ökonomen eine internationale Koordination und eine Harmonisierung der Steuergesetze. Die Länder sollen ihre Multinationalen Konzerne daheim zu einem Satz besteuern, der die in Ländern mit sehr niedrigen oder vollkommen ohne Steuern verbuchten unversteuerten Gewinne ausgleicht. Wird in Irland ein bestimmter Betrag den ein Italienisches Unternehmen dort verbucht nur mit 5 Prozent besteuert, soll Italien den in Irland verbuchten Gewinn einfach zu einem solchen Satz besteuern, dass der Gesamtsatz wieder bei ZB 25 Prozent liegt, in diesem Fall also zu Ca 20 Prozent. Durch die BEPS-Initiative des OECD liegen inzwischen Daten vor, die solch ein Unterfangen möglich machen würden. Des Weiteren plädieren die Autoren für eine Internationale Koordination und einen einheitlichen Mindeststeuersatz von 25 Prozent unter den G-20 Ländern. Gleichzeitig wird die Sorge vor der Inversion von Unternehmen anhand von Daten entschärft. Neben Sanktionen gegen Steueroasen, soll besonders dadurch gegen Länder vorgegangen werden, die sich gegen eine Internationale Koordination der Steuerpolitik wehren, dass Hochsteuerländer die Steuern einziehen, die die Länder in denen die Internationalen Unternehmen ihren Sitz haben, sich einzuziehen weigern. Verbucht beispielsweise Nestle 20 Prozent seines weltweiten Umsatzes in den Vereinigten Staaten, könnten die USA geltend machen, dass auch 20 Prozent des weltweiten Umsatzes ihren Steuern unterliegt, selbst dann, wenn der Betrag in eine Steueroase verschoben werden sollte, und die Schweiz sich weigern sollte, diese Beträge angemessen zu besteuern. Dass dies möglich wäre, zeigen die Autoren anhand der Amerikanischen Bundesstaaten, innerhalb derer eine solche Staatenübergreifende Steuerpolitik bereits heute greift. All diese Maßnahmen sollen uns von einem Steuerunterbietungswettbewerb weg und zu einem internationalen Wettbewerb hin führen, bei dem die Produktivität der Arbeiter, die Fortschrittlichkeit der Infrastruktur, und er technische Stand, maßgebend sind, und nicht der niedrigste Steuersatz. Im siebten Kapitel wird auf den optimalen Steuersatz für das reichste Prozent der Bevölkerung eingegangen. Unter Rückgriff auf Frank Ramsey wird dabei der optimale Steuersatz für die Spitzenverdiener als derjenige definiert, der das meiste Einkommen für den Staat generieren würde. Dieser Satz liegt laut den Autoren bei Ca 60 Prozent, also minimal höher als der durchschnittliche Steuersatz für Reiche unter Präsident Eisenhower. Die Einrichtung eines Amtes für den Schutz der Allgemeinheit "Public Protection Bureau" zur Regulierung von Steuerkanzleien und Steueranwälten soll den IRS, dessen Budget in den letzten 10 Jahren um 20 Prozent gesunken ist und das ein Drittel seines Personals eingebüßt hat, bei der Reduktion der Methoden zur Steuervermeidung unterstützen. Die Idee dahinter ist ein Gesetz, dass es verpflichtend macht, das Amt über jede neue Methode der Steuerplanung und Steuerregulierung zu informieren, sowie die Überprüfung ausländischer Steuerpraktiken und die Informierung des Finanzministeriums über dieselben zwecks Wirtschaftlicher Sanktionen gegenüber Steueroasen. Zudem soll der Grundsatz "Gleiches Einkommen gleiche Steuern" geltend gemacht werden. Eine unterschiedliche Besteuerung der Einkommen, beispielsweise eine geringere Besteuerung von Einkommen aus privaten Veräußerungsgeschäften (wie noch unter Roosevelt) soll durch eine progressive Integration der Persönlichen Einkommenssteuer und Körperschaftssteuer ersetzt werden, die um Steuerpolitische Maßnahmen ergänzt werden sollen, die der Thesaurierung von Gewinnen entgegen wirken, wie beispielsweise dem Zwang, nicht-börsennotierte Unternehmen als Partnerschaften zu behandeln. Ganz zentral dabei um den optimalen, also die maximalen Einnahmen generierenden, Steuersatz von Ca 60 Prozent für die Reichen zu generieren ist hierbei eine progressive Vermögensbesteuerung, die in Höhe von 2 Prozent auf Vermögen von 50 Millionen Dollar, und in Höhe von 3,5 Prozent auf mehr als Eine Milliarde Dollar Vermögen erhoben wird. Diese ist deshalb so wichtig, weil Vermögende auf den Anstieg ihres Jährlichen Vermögens keine Einkommenssteuer zu zahlen haben, wodurch beispielsweise Warren Buffett, lediglich auf den sehr geringen Einkommensbetrag aus persönlichen Veräußerungsgeschäften, nicht aber auf den Anstieg seiner Vermögenswerte, steuern zu zahlen hat. Im Achten Kapitel wird für einen möglichen Spitzensteuersatz argumentiert, der über den das Einkommen für den Staat maximierenden Steuersatz hinausgehen würde. Die Autoren gehen hier also "über Laffer hinaus" (Laffer-Kurve). Mit einem Blick auf die Gleichheit vor und nach Steuern in der Vergangenheit werden Argumente für eine deutlich höhere Vermögens- und Einkommensbesteuerung vorgebracht, um Rent-Seeking und die Konzentration von Vermögen zu verhindern. Anhand von historischen Daten wird gezeigt, dass sowohl das Wirtschaftswachstum insgesamt als auch das jährliche Wachstum der Einkommen vor Steuern über alle Einkommensgruppen von 1946 bis 1980 höher gewesen ist, als in den Jahren von Reagan und danach, und die Ungleichheit des Einkommenswachstums um ein Vielfaches zugenommen hat, sodass von 1980 bis 2018 das durchschnittliche Einkommenswachstum pro Jahr für die unteren 50 Prozent bei Ca 0,1 Prozent gelegen hat, während es für die 2300 reichsten Amerikaner seit 1980 um 600 Prozent angestiegen ist. Wir haben es hier also quasi mit einer Stagnation der Einkommen zu tun. Mit einer solchen Ungleichheit der Einkommen vor Steuern stellen die Vereinigten Staaten selbst andere kapitalistische Demokratien, wie beispielsweise Frankreich, noch weit in den Schatten. Eine "radikale Vermögensteuer" soll die Konzentration der Vermögen an der Spitze Einhalt gebieten, der Bildung von Monopolen entgegenwirken, und für mehr Gleichheit sorgen. Sie würde es den Milliardären schwerer machen, solche zu bleiben, und für eine Umverteilung der Vermögen sorgen. Im letzten Kapitel gehen die Autoren schließlich noch auf ein Programm zur Finanzierung eines US-Amerikanischen Sozialstaats ein. Eine einheitliche Nationaleinkommenssteuer soll dank ihrer breiten Steuerbasis dazu beitragen, das amerikanische
Krankenversicherungssystem zu überarbeiten, die Abgaben an private Krankenversicherungen zu ersetzen und den Zugang zu Bildung zu erleichtern. Der Rückstand US-Amerikas in dieser Sache, beispielsweise darin, dass werdende Mütter einen im Vergleich zu den Vätern um 31 Prozent hohen Einschnitt ihrer Einkommen zu verzeichnen haben, weil es dort keine staatlichen Aufwendungen wie Mutterschaftsurlaube und kaum öffentliche Kindergärten gibt, macht dabei die Dringlichkeit einer Nationaleinkommenssteuer deutlich, welche statt einer Mehrwertsteuer (oder in Amerika dem komplexen System Bundesstaatlicher Verbrauchssteuern) zur Finanzierung einer allgemeinen Krankenversicherung in entwickelten Industrienationen genutzt werden könnte, und die die untere und mittlere Bevölkerungsschicht, welche von den Verbrauchssteuern besonders getroffen wird, entlasten könnte. Eine Co2-Steuer ZUR FINANZIERUNG DERSELBEN lehnen die Autoren ab, da eine Co2-Steuer zwar nötig und wichtig ist um dem Klimawandel zu begegnen, aber auf Dauer eben gar keine Einnahmen mehr generieren sollte.
Am Ende machen Emmanuel Saez und Gabriel Zucman noch auf ihre Website, Taxjustice-Now aufmerksam, die jedem zur Verfügung steht.
Fazit:
Das Buch ist insgesamt jedem zu empfehlen der sich mit dem Thema Steuern, einem, wie das Buch einem nahebringt, sehr zentralen Thema jeder Gesellschaft, auseinandersetzen will und auch sollte. Steuern müssen als wichtig begriffen werden. Der Unterbietungswettbewerb ist nicht Alternativlos. Wir müssen Anfangen die Reichen und die Unternehmen zu besteuern, die Gewinnverschiebung zu reduzieren, und International Koordiniert zusammenzuarbeiten, um gerechtere Gesellschaften und Lebensbedingungen für uns alle zu schaffen. Amerika hat dies schon einmal getan und kann es wieder tun. Aber nicht nur Amerika, auch Europa muss diese Aufgabe wahrnehmen. Die 2021 ins Leben gerufene Europäische Beobachtungsstelle zur Steuerpolitik die von Gabriel Zucman geleistet wird, ist ein erster Schritt in Richtung Steuerprogressivität.
Welche Arten von Steuern gibt es ? Welche Funktionen erfüllen Steuern? Wie haben sie sich in der Vergangenheit entwickelt, und sind die Spitzen-und Grenzsteuersätze heute höher oder niedriger als sie das früher gewesen sind ? Wie hoch sind die Steuern heute, und sollten sie höher sein ? Wie sinnvoll ist eine Vermögensteuer eigentlich ? Auf all diese und noch einige andere Fragen gehen die beiden französischen Wirtschaftswissenschaftler und Kollegen vom Bestseller-Autor Thomas Piketty in diesem Buch eine Antwort. Genauer gesagt, handelt es sich bei dem vorliegenden Buch um eine Analyse des US-Amerikanischen Steuersystems. Die Entwicklung der Steuern in den Vereinigten Staaten, besonders über das 20. Jahrhundert hinweg, wird mit den heute dort vorherrschenden Steuern und Steuersätzen verglichen, und die Auswirkungen der Steuersätze auf das (Netto)Nationaleinkommen sowie die Verteilung desselben auf die verschiedenen Gesellschaftsklassen untersucht. Das Ergebnis ? Obwohl sich Konservative, häufig besonders Republikanische, Ökonomen und Politiker gerne auf das Mantra berufen, dass Steuern "unamerikanisch" seien und ein Eingriff in die persönliche Freiheit des einzelnen Bürgers, waren die Vereinigten Staaten Vorreiter in der Besteuerung ihrer Bevölkerung, und die "Exzessiven Steuern" die in der Vergangenheit in den Vereinigten Staaten erhoben wurden, galten niemals für die Mittelschicht, sondern allein für die absoluten Spitzenverdiener.
Zusammenfassung:
Zu Beginn unterteilen die beiden Ökonomen die in den Vereinigten Staaten vorherrschenden Steuern in Vier Klassen: Einkommenssteuern, Lohnsteuern, Kapitalsteuern und Vebrauchsteuern, um dann den Gegenwert in Prozent des (Netto)Nationaleinkommens darzulegen, den diese Steuern generieren. Gleich zu Beginn wird dabei auf die extreme Regressivität des Steuersystem aufmerksam gemacht. Aufgrund von seit den 80er Jahren durchgeführten Steuerreformen und einem extremen Anstieg der Steuervermeidung sind heute nicht nur viele Einkommensarten und Konsumausgaben entweder Steuerbefreit (wie beispielsweise thesaurierte Unternehmensgewinne, Dividenden und Zinsen aus Pensionskonten, oder persönliche Dienstleistungen wie ein Besuch in der Oper oder die Mitgliedschaft in einem Country Club etc.) sondern diejenigen Steuern die auf solche Einkommen erhoben werden, die hauptsächlich von der Oberschicht bezogen werden, unterliegen zudem niedrigeren Steuersätzen als sie das früher taten. Unter Trump wurde beispielweise die Körperschaftssteuer von 35 auf 21 Prozent gesenkt, eine Tendenz die auch in anderen Ländern wie Frankreich, Ungarn, Großbritannien etc. zu verzeichnen ist und die als ein Symptom des seit einigen Jahren grassierenden Steuerunterbietungswettbewerbs angesehen werden muss. Das Ergebnis ist eine Gesamtwirtschaftliche Kopfsteuer die gegen Ende regressiv wird. Während die Steuern die Lohnempfänger treffen, wie die Beiträge zur staatlichen Rentenversicherung und die Beiträge für Medicare, seit den 50er Jahren enorm angestiegen sind (von 3 auf ca 15 Prozent), sind in den letzten 40 Jahren die Steuern auf Kapitalerträge stark gesunken. Daraus ergibt sich, dass der Anteil den die unteren 50 Prozent am Nationaleinkommen zu verbuchen haben seit den 80er Jahren mit dem Anteil den das oberste eine Prozent an Demselben zu verbuchen hat, gewechselt ist, sodass heute 20 Prozent des Nationaleinkommens vor Steuern auf das oberste Prozent, und nur ca 12 Prozent auf das der unteren 50 Prozent zurückgeführt werden kann. Im zweiten und dritten Kapitel wird auf die amerikanische Steuergeschichte eingegangen und untersucht, was genau an dem Mantra "Steuern sind unamerikanisch, Amerikaner hassen Steuern" eigentlich dran ist. Das Ergebnis ? Nicht Viel. Die Vereinigten Staaten waren bereits im 17. Jahrhundert mit einer moderneren Form der Vermögensbesteuerung in den nördlichen Kolonien Vorreiter in Sachen Besteuerung, und das hat sich im 20. Jahrhundert nicht geändert. Bereits zu Beginn des Zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts wurde unter Woodrow Wilson eine extrem progressive Vermögensbesteuerung eingeführt, die unter Franklin D. Roosevelt nur noch weiter verschärft wurde. Letzterer hat ebenso die bereits von Herbert Hoover eingeführte progressive Vermögensbesteuerung in Form einer Nachlasssteuer fortgeführt. Die extrem hohen Spitzensätze bei der Einkommensbesteuerung die bei den höchsten Einkommen in einem heutigen Gegenwert von Ca 6 Millionen Dollar oder mehr im Jahr eingesetzt haben, lagen zwischenzeitlich bei über 90 Prozent, und der durchschnittliche Effektive Steuersatz für die obersten 0,1 Prozent lag in den Jahren zwischen Roosevelt und Reagan bei Ca 55 Prozent. Die Autoren machen dabei auf die unterschiedlichen Zwecke der Körperschaftssteuer und der Persönlichen Einkommenssteuer aufmerksam, wie auch darauf, dass die extrem starke Besteuerung der persönlichen Einkommen von einem Anstieg der Prozente begleitet wurde, die die Mittel und Unterschicht am Nationaleinkommen zu verzeichnen hatten, wie auch mit einer durchschnittlichen Gesamtwirtschaftlichen Wachstumsrate, die größer gewesen ist, als die in den letzten 40 Jahren (Kapitel 8). Am Ende steht dabei fest, dass es nicht, wie uns Ökonomen, Unternehmer oder konservative Politiker gerne glauben machen wollen, die Amerikanische Mittelschicht ist, die von einer Einkommenssteuer am meisten betroffen ist, sondern besonders die reiche Oberschicht es gewesen ist, die durch eine progressive und hohe Einkommenssteuer besonders getroffen wurde. Im dritten Kapitel wird die auf die Steuerreform Reagans folgende grassierende Welle an Steuerhinterziehung aufmerksam gemacht, die durch eine, sich während der Verbreitung der Ideologie des "Konsens von Washington" entwickelnde, Steuervermeidungsindustrie in Gang gesetzt wurde. Die Steuerreformen senkten trotz niedrigerer Steuersätze entgegen der Erwartungen der Ökonomen die Steuervermeidung nicht, vielmehr sahen sich Steuerkanzleien und Anwälte nun politisch in ihrem Vorhaben bestätigt, und es entstanden eine Reihe von neuen Methoden zur Vermeidung und Hinterziehung von Steuern (ZB. Scheinpartnerschaften oder Investments in Offshore-Firmen auf den niederländischen Antillen). Damit einher ging ein Rückgang der Steuervollziehung. Der IRS, der sowieso viel weniger Ressourcen zur Verfügung hat, als die Steuervermeidungsbranche, prüfte 1975 beispielsweise noch 65 Prozent der größten Nachlasssteuererklärungen, 2018 jedoch nur noch 8,6 Prozent. Darauf ist auch der Rückgang der Einnahmen aus derselben von 0,2 Prozent des Nettovermögens privater Haushalte (1970er) auf 0,03 Prozent (also um das fünffache!) (2018) zurückzuführen. Im Vierten Kapitel gehen die Autoren auf das, seit den 80er Jahren um ein vielfaches zugenommene, Phänomen der Gewinnverschiebung von Buchgewinnen in Offshore-Bankkonten und Firmen ein, und erläutern dies anhand mehrerer Beispiele. Das Problem der Konzerninternen Transaktionen wird am Beispiel von Google beleuchtet. Ganz besonders problematisch ist hierbei, dass der Verkauf von Patenten, Logos und Dienstleistungen, die nicht öffentlich beobachtbar zu einem bestimmten Marktpreis gehandelt werden, innerhalb von Mutter und Tochterunternehmen nicht unter den Fremdvergleichungsgrundsatz fallen und somit die Rechte an Logos, Dienstleistungen und Patenten an in Irland oder auf den Bermudas ansässige Tochterunternehmen zu einem Spottpreis verkauft werden, damit dann die in Hochsteuerländern ansässigen Tochterunternehmen Lizenzgebühren für die Nutzung der Patente und Logos an das in den den Steueroasen ansässige Schwesterunternehmen zahlen, die dort ohne Steuern als Buchgewinne registriert, und hier als Gebühren vom Gewinn abgezogen werden können, um die Steuerbasis zu reduzieren. Im Endeffekt verlieren also die Hochsteuerländer einen Teil ihrer Steuereinnahmen, was einerseits auf ein veraltetes Steuerrechtssystem, andererseits auf die neue Steuerumgehungsindustrie, und wiederum andererseits darauf zurückzuführen ist, dass, besonders kleine Staaten, extrem niedrige Steuersätze oder gar keine Steuern im eigenen Land dulden, weil sie geringe Gebühren auf all die Gewinne anrechnen, die sonst gar nicht erst in ihr Land verschoben worden wären. Es ist hierbei wichtig zu bemerken, dass es entgegen der von einigen Globalisierungsgegnern vorgebrachten Argumentation nicht ein "kluger Schachzug" der Unternehmen ist, die primär ihr Kapital in Form von Anlagevermögen ins Ausland verschieben um die dort niedrigeren Steuern wahrzunehmen, sondern dass statt Fabriken vorwiegend Buchgewinne ins Ausland abgeführt werden. Im fünften Kapitel, setzen Saez und Zucman sich einerseits mit der privaten Krankenversicherung auseinander die von den Autoren als eine "Quasi-Steuer" verstanden wird, da sie zwar nicht direkt vom Staat selbst erhoben wird, allerdings gesetzlich verpflichtend ist. Berechnet man diese Beträge, die in den meisten Fällen auf Arbeitseinkommen vermittelst des Arbeitgebers angerechnet werden, mit ein, sieht man, dass der gesamtwirtschaftlichen Steuersatz auf Arbeit, der 1950 noch um fast 20 Prozent niedriger ausfiel als der auf Kapitalerträge, heute um beinahe 10 Prozent höher liegt als derselbige. Im selbigen Kapitel räumen die beiden Wissenschaftler auch anhand historischer Daten mit der heute immer noch gelehrten These auf, dass eine hohe Kapitalbesteuerung (Körperschaftssteuer, Steuer auf Dividenden etc.) die Investitionsquote oder Sparquote senken und somit indirekt die Produktivität und das Lohnniveau senken würden. Die Daten stützen weder die oft behauptete "Elastizität" des Kapitals noch den Rückgang des Lohnniveaus im Zuge einer hohen Unternehmensbesteuerung. Im Gegenteil. Politische Anreize zur Investition, wie beispielsweise eine Staatliche Förderungen der Vergabe von Hypotheken oder gesetzliche Bestimmungen zur Ermutigung von der Vergabe Kapitalgedeckter Altersvorsorgen durch den Arbeitgeber hatten in der Vergangenheit mehr Einfluss auf die Spar-und Investitionsquoten als Steuerpolitische Anreize. Angemerkt wird hierbei noch, dass eine niedrige Körperschaftsbesteuerung Anreize dazu gibt, persönliches Einkommen in Unternehmensgewinne umzuwandeln und so die persönliche Einkommenssteuer zu untergraben. Im sechsten, und vielleicht wichtigsten Kapitel, werden Vorschläge zur Verhinderung der Steuervermeidung auf Internationaler Ebene vorgebracht. Ausgehend von dem, durch den "Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act" unter Obama hervorgebrachten, verstärkten Austausch von Informationen zwischen den Finanzinstituten auf Internationaler Ebene, fordern die Ökonomen eine internationale Koordination und eine Harmonisierung der Steuergesetze. Die Länder sollen ihre Multinationalen Konzerne daheim zu einem Satz besteuern, der die in Ländern mit sehr niedrigen oder vollkommen ohne Steuern verbuchten unversteuerten Gewinne ausgleicht. Wird in Irland ein bestimmter Betrag den ein Italienisches Unternehmen dort verbucht nur mit 5 Prozent besteuert, soll Italien den in Irland verbuchten Gewinn einfach zu einem solchen Satz besteuern, dass der Gesamtsatz wieder bei ZB 25 Prozent liegt, in diesem Fall also zu Ca 20 Prozent. Durch die BEPS-Initiative des OECD liegen inzwischen Daten vor, die solch ein Unterfangen möglich machen würden. Des Weiteren plädieren die Autoren für eine Internationale Koordination und einen einheitlichen Mindeststeuersatz von 25 Prozent unter den G-20 Ländern. Gleichzeitig wird die Sorge vor der Inversion von Unternehmen anhand von Daten entschärft. Neben Sanktionen gegen Steueroasen, soll besonders dadurch gegen Länder vorgegangen werden, die sich gegen eine Internationale Koordination der Steuerpolitik wehren, dass Hochsteuerländer die Steuern einziehen, die die Länder in denen die Internationalen Unternehmen ihren Sitz haben, sich einzuziehen weigern. Verbucht beispielsweise Nestle 20 Prozent seines weltweiten Umsatzes in den Vereinigten Staaten, könnten die USA geltend machen, dass auch 20 Prozent des weltweiten Umsatzes ihren Steuern unterliegt, selbst dann, wenn der Betrag in eine Steueroase verschoben werden sollte, und die Schweiz sich weigern sollte, diese Beträge angemessen zu besteuern. Dass dies möglich wäre, zeigen die Autoren anhand der Amerikanischen Bundesstaaten, innerhalb derer eine solche Staatenübergreifende Steuerpolitik bereits heute greift. All diese Maßnahmen sollen uns von einem Steuerunterbietungswettbewerb weg und zu einem internationalen Wettbewerb hin führen, bei dem die Produktivität der Arbeiter, die Fortschrittlichkeit der Infrastruktur, und er technische Stand, maßgebend sind, und nicht der niedrigste Steuersatz. Im siebten Kapitel wird auf den optimalen Steuersatz für das reichste Prozent der Bevölkerung eingegangen. Unter Rückgriff auf Frank Ramsey wird dabei der optimale Steuersatz für die Spitzenverdiener als derjenige definiert, der das meiste Einkommen für den Staat generieren würde. Dieser Satz liegt laut den Autoren bei Ca 60 Prozent, also minimal höher als der durchschnittliche Steuersatz für Reiche unter Präsident Eisenhower. Die Einrichtung eines Amtes für den Schutz der Allgemeinheit "Public Protection Bureau" zur Regulierung von Steuerkanzleien und Steueranwälten soll den IRS, dessen Budget in den letzten 10 Jahren um 20 Prozent gesunken ist und das ein Drittel seines Personals eingebüßt hat, bei der Reduktion der Methoden zur Steuervermeidung unterstützen. Die Idee dahinter ist ein Gesetz, dass es verpflichtend macht, das Amt über jede neue Methode der Steuerplanung und Steuerregulierung zu informieren, sowie die Überprüfung ausländischer Steuerpraktiken und die Informierung des Finanzministeriums über dieselben zwecks Wirtschaftlicher Sanktionen gegenüber Steueroasen. Zudem soll der Grundsatz "Gleiches Einkommen gleiche Steuern" geltend gemacht werden. Eine unterschiedliche Besteuerung der Einkommen, beispielsweise eine geringere Besteuerung von Einkommen aus privaten Veräußerungsgeschäften (wie noch unter Roosevelt) soll durch eine progressive Integration der Persönlichen Einkommenssteuer und Körperschaftssteuer ersetzt werden, die um Steuerpolitische Maßnahmen ergänzt werden sollen, die der Thesaurierung von Gewinnen entgegen wirken, wie beispielsweise dem Zwang, nicht-börsennotierte Unternehmen als Partnerschaften zu behandeln. Ganz zentral dabei um den optimalen, also die maximalen Einnahmen generierenden, Steuersatz von Ca 60 Prozent für die Reichen zu generieren ist hierbei eine progressive Vermögensbesteuerung, die in Höhe von 2 Prozent auf Vermögen von 50 Millionen Dollar, und in Höhe von 3,5 Prozent auf mehr als Eine Milliarde Dollar Vermögen erhoben wird. Diese ist deshalb so wichtig, weil Vermögende auf den Anstieg ihres Jährlichen Vermögens keine Einkommenssteuer zu zahlen haben, wodurch beispielsweise Warren Buffett, lediglich auf den sehr geringen Einkommensbetrag aus persönlichen Veräußerungsgeschäften, nicht aber auf den Anstieg seiner Vermögenswerte, steuern zu zahlen hat. Im Achten Kapitel wird für einen möglichen Spitzensteuersatz argumentiert, der über den das Einkommen für den Staat maximierenden Steuersatz hinausgehen würde. Die Autoren gehen hier also "über Laffer hinaus" (Laffer-Kurve). Mit einem Blick auf die Gleichheit vor und nach Steuern in der Vergangenheit werden Argumente für eine deutlich höhere Vermögens- und Einkommensbesteuerung vorgebracht, um Rent-Seeking und die Konzentration von Vermögen zu verhindern. Anhand von historischen Daten wird gezeigt, dass sowohl das Wirtschaftswachstum insgesamt als auch das jährliche Wachstum der Einkommen vor Steuern über alle Einkommensgruppen von 1946 bis 1980 höher gewesen ist, als in den Jahren von Reagan und danach, und die Ungleichheit des Einkommenswachstums um ein Vielfaches zugenommen hat, sodass von 1980 bis 2018 das durchschnittliche Einkommenswachstum pro Jahr für die unteren 50 Prozent bei Ca 0,1 Prozent gelegen hat, während es für die 2300 reichsten Amerikaner seit 1980 um 600 Prozent angestiegen ist. Wir haben es hier also quasi mit einer Stagnation der Einkommen zu tun. Mit einer solchen Ungleichheit der Einkommen vor Steuern stellen die Vereinigten Staaten selbst andere kapitalistische Demokratien, wie beispielsweise Frankreich, noch weit in den Schatten. Eine "radikale Vermögensteuer" soll die Konzentration der Vermögen an der Spitze Einhalt gebieten, der Bildung von Monopolen entgegenwirken, und für mehr Gleichheit sorgen. Sie würde es den Milliardären schwerer machen, solche zu bleiben, und für eine Umverteilung der Vermögen sorgen. Im letzten Kapitel gehen die Autoren schließlich noch auf ein Programm zur Finanzierung eines US-Amerikanischen Sozialstaats ein. Eine einheitliche Nationaleinkommenssteuer soll dank ihrer breiten Steuerbasis dazu beitragen, das amerikanische
Krankenversicherungssystem zu überarbeiten, die Abgaben an private Krankenversicherungen zu ersetzen und den Zugang zu Bildung zu erleichtern. Der Rückstand US-Amerikas in dieser Sache, beispielsweise darin, dass werdende Mütter einen im Vergleich zu den Vätern um 31 Prozent hohen Einschnitt ihrer Einkommen zu verzeichnen haben, weil es dort keine staatlichen Aufwendungen wie Mutterschaftsurlaube und kaum öffentliche Kindergärten gibt, macht dabei die Dringlichkeit einer Nationaleinkommenssteuer deutlich, welche statt einer Mehrwertsteuer (oder in Amerika dem komplexen System Bundesstaatlicher Verbrauchssteuern) zur Finanzierung einer allgemeinen Krankenversicherung in entwickelten Industrienationen genutzt werden könnte, und die die untere und mittlere Bevölkerungsschicht, welche von den Verbrauchssteuern besonders getroffen wird, entlasten könnte. Eine Co2-Steuer ZUR FINANZIERUNG DERSELBEN lehnen die Autoren ab, da eine Co2-Steuer zwar nötig und wichtig ist um dem Klimawandel zu begegnen, aber auf Dauer eben gar keine Einnahmen mehr generieren sollte.
Am Ende machen Emmanuel Saez und Gabriel Zucman noch auf ihre Website, Taxjustice-Now aufmerksam, die jedem zur Verfügung steht.
Fazit:
Das Buch ist insgesamt jedem zu empfehlen der sich mit dem Thema Steuern, einem, wie das Buch einem nahebringt, sehr zentralen Thema jeder Gesellschaft, auseinandersetzen will und auch sollte. Steuern müssen als wichtig begriffen werden. Der Unterbietungswettbewerb ist nicht Alternativlos. Wir müssen Anfangen die Reichen und die Unternehmen zu besteuern, die Gewinnverschiebung zu reduzieren, und International Koordiniert zusammenzuarbeiten, um gerechtere Gesellschaften und Lebensbedingungen für uns alle zu schaffen. Amerika hat dies schon einmal getan und kann es wieder tun. Aber nicht nur Amerika, auch Europa muss diese Aufgabe wahrnehmen. Die 2021 ins Leben gerufene Europäische Beobachtungsstelle zur Steuerpolitik die von Gabriel Zucman geleistet wird, ist ein erster Schritt in Richtung Steuerprogressivität.
October 18, 2019
Despite the sensationalist title, this is actually a pretty serious book, though Saez and Zucman have strong left-of-center views. The first chapter is the most important, as it presents new data analysis on the share of taxes paid by all income quantiles since 1913. The stark news here is that the very very top, the 0.01 percent, have a lower tax bill than anybody else, largely due to the Trump cuts of the corporate income tax. The rest of the book summarizes earlier research by them and others on tax evasion and related issues, and proposes fixes (including a wealth tax). Very well written.
January 4, 2021
Pretty interesting but a little too in the weeds for someone who doesn't know a ton about tax policy. Long story short: American tax policy is currently super regressive, it hasn't always been though, so there's proof that it doesn't need to be. Countries should use influence to make sure they can't just get bullied by corporations. Tax the fuck out of the rich, and do it punitively. Eat the rich.
March 29, 2021
Very well written book. Short and concise.
The downside of more popular approach (instead of academic) is that it is unclear for the reader exactly what methodology is used and what alternative views exist out there.
Trusting this will stand the test of time, a solid 5/5. It is time to wake up and realize that the extreme rich billionaires of our time do not exist due to some mystical gift bestowed on them which allows them to lead humanity in a great leap forward and get rich in the meantime, but rather, they exist due to ever lower tax rates and mazes in our laws which continues to exist thanks to the political power wealth buys.
The authors proposition on tax justice is so radically different from the current mainstream ideology and retorics, that I bet many of the readers will disagree. Nonetheless, even if you don't agree in full with the proposed tax reforms, at the very least this book will help you realize the current path is a dead end.
The downside of more popular approach (instead of academic) is that it is unclear for the reader exactly what methodology is used and what alternative views exist out there.
Trusting this will stand the test of time, a solid 5/5. It is time to wake up and realize that the extreme rich billionaires of our time do not exist due to some mystical gift bestowed on them which allows them to lead humanity in a great leap forward and get rich in the meantime, but rather, they exist due to ever lower tax rates and mazes in our laws which continues to exist thanks to the political power wealth buys.
The authors proposition on tax justice is so radically different from the current mainstream ideology and retorics, that I bet many of the readers will disagree. Nonetheless, even if you don't agree in full with the proposed tax reforms, at the very least this book will help you realize the current path is a dead end.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 201 reviews