Podcasts about zucman

In this episode, Bob breaks down the Triffin dilemma, explaining why it's wrong to assume that maintaining global reserve currency status requires ever-increasing U.S. trade deficits. He shows that America's chronic deficits are driven more by government spending and fiat money than by global necessity, making the case that returning to fiscal discipline and sound money—not tariffs—is the key to reversing America's economic decline.Bob and Jonathan Newman on Misleading Charts: Mises.org/HAP495aHow Economists Evaluate Tariffs Versus Income Taxes: Mises.org/HAP495bThe St. Louis Federal Reserve Article on Historical U.S. Trade Deficits: Mises.org/HAP495cThe Charts Referenced in this Episode: Mises.org/HAP495dSaez and Zucman, "The Rise of Income and Wealth Inequality in America": Mises.org/HAP495eTrump's Remarks on the US being a "Tariff-Backed Nation": Mises.org/HAP495fThe Tucker Carlson Show with Bob Lighthizer: Mises.org/HAP495gThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFreeJoin the Mises Institute on April 26 in Phoenix, Arizona, as we expose the danger and waste of bureaucracy: Mises.org/Phoenix25

In this episode, Bob breaks down the Triffin dilemma, explaining why it's wrong to assume that maintaining global reserve currency status requires ever-increasing U.S. trade deficits. He shows that America's chronic deficits are driven more by government spending and fiat money than by global necessity, making the case that returning to fiscal discipline and sound money—not tariffs—is the key to reversing America's economic decline.Bob and Jonathan Newman on Misleading Charts: Mises.org/HAP495aHow Economists Evaluate Tariffs Versus Income Taxes: Mises.org/HAP495bThe St. Louis Federal Reserve Article on Historical U.S. Trade Deficits: Mises.org/HAP495cThe Charts Referenced in this Episode: Mises.org/HAP495dSaez and Zucman, "The Rise of Income and Wealth Inequality in America": Mises.org/HAP495eTrump's Remarks on the US being a "Tariff-Backed Nation": Mises.org/HAP495fThe Tucker Carlson Show with Bob Lighthizer: Mises.org/HAP495gThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Murray Rothbard's, What Has Government Done to Our Money? Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFreeJoin the Mises Institute on April 26 in Phoenix, Arizona, as we expose the danger and waste of bureaucracy: Mises.org/Phoenix25

C dans l'air du 20 mars 2025 - Prêts à financer la défense ?Face au désengagement américain, les Européens pressent le pas pour tenter d'assurer eux-mêmes leur défense. Après avoir validé le plan d'investissements "ReArm Europe" au début du mois, les Vingt-Sept se réunissent de nouveau ce jeudi pour examiner les orientations du Livre blanc sur la défense, présenté par la Commission européenne. On y retrouve les grandes lignes du plan dévoilé par Ursula von der Leyen il y a deux semaines, avec un objectif affiché de 800 milliards d'euros pour réarmer l'Europe d'ici 2030 ainsi que des propositions pour aider les États à augmenter leurs dépenses militaires et renforcer l'industrie de défense. Mais des divergences persistent quant au financement de ce plan.En France, le chef de l'Etat a promis mardi d'augmenter les commandes de Rafale ainsi que "d'importantes décisions pour nos armées" dans les "prochaines semaines", dans le cadre de nouveaux investissements décidés en raison de la "bascule" géopolitique. En quelques semaines, la défense est devenue la priorité du gouvernement. Son budget, de plus de 50 milliards d'euros en 2025, devrait doubler d'ici 2030 pour se rapprocher de 100 milliards d'euros, selon le ministre de la Défense. Mais comment financer le réarmement de la France ? A-t-on les moyens de nos ambitions ? Alors qu'investisseurs et entreprises sont réunis ce jeudi au ministère de l'Economie pour réfléchir à une montée en cadence, dans le contexte de la guerre en Ukraine, Eric Lombard a annoncé ce jeudi la création d'un fonds de 450 millions d'euros dans lequel les Français pourront investir pour financer le secteur de la défense. "Il ne peut pas y avoir de nouveau 'quoi qu'il en coûte'" a prévenu de son côté le gouverneur de la Banque de France. La réunion de ce jeudi répond à "une première question 'Qui va prêter au début aux industries de défense ?'""Mais la question plus difficile qui viendra ensuite, qui est plus difficile, c'est : 'Qui va payer à la fin ?'", a poursuivi François Villeroy de Galhau.Si l'exécutif exclut toute hausse d'impôts, le Premier ministre, François Bayrou, a défendu l'idée d'une "reconquête de la production" sur France Inter, sans préciser comment. En travaillant plus, dans la semaine ou dans l'année et tout au long de la vie, a expliqué de son côté Edouard Philippe alors qu'à gauche c'est l'idée d'un grand emprunt européen et d'une taxe Zucman sur les ultrariches qui est poussée. L'Observatoire européen de la fiscalité dirigé par l'économiste français Gabriel Zucman propose de taxer à hauteur de 2 % ou 3 % le patrimoine des ultrariches européens (plus de 100 millions d'euros) pour financer l'effort de défense du Vieux Continent. Cette taxe rapporterait, en fonction du taux retenu, de 67 milliards à 121 milliards d'euros par an.Parallèlement, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, Fabien Roussel, Olivier Faure, Mathilde Panot ou encore Marine Tondelier ont alerté l'éxécutif sur la situation de Vencorex, un sous-traitant stratégique pour la dissuasion nucléaire française, placée en redressement judiciaire en septembre dernier. "On ne peut pas laisser Vencorex fermer" a estimé le leader de la France insoumise que nous avons suivi lors de son déplacement sur le site ce mercredi. Il a également exhorté le gouvernement à cesser "son baratin sur la souveraineté".Nos journalistes sont également allés en Estonie. Ce pays frontalier de la Russie est désormais l'un des pays de l'OTAN qui investit le plus dans sa défense. Il y consacre 3,4 % de son PIB depuis l'année dernière et entend passer à plus de 5 % de son PIB à partir de 2026. "Avec la Russie, nous avons un délai de trois à cinq ans" a expliqué le ministre des Affaires étrangères estonien qui appelle les autres pays européens à investir de la défense européenne. Les experts :- ALAIN PIROT - Journaliste spécialiste des questions de défense- ISABELLE LASSERRE - Correspondante diplomatique - Le Figaro , spécialiste des questions de stratégie et de géopolitique- SYLVIE MATELLY - Économiste, directrice de l'Institut Jacques Delors, auteure de Géopolitique de l'économie - PIERRE HAROCHE - Maître de conférences en politique européenne et internationale, Université Catholique de Lille PRÉSENTATION : Caroline Roux - Axel de Tarlé - REDIFFUSION : du lundi au vendredi vers 23h40PRODUCTION DES PODCASTS: Jean-Christophe ThiéfineRÉALISATION : Nicolas Ferraro, Bruno Piney, Franck Broqua, Alexandre Langeard, Corentin Son, Benoît LemoinePRODUCTION : France Télévisions / Maximal ProductionsRetrouvez C DANS L'AIR sur internet & les réseaux :INTERNET : francetv.frFACEBOOK : https://www.facebook.com/Cdanslairf5TWITTER : https://twitter.com/cdanslairINSTAGRAM : https://www.instagram.com/cdanslair/

Frédéric Taddeï reçoit une pléiade d'experts pour aborder des sujets aussi variés que fascinants. Tout d'abord, l'astrophysicien Patrick Michel, directeur de recherche au CNRS, nous plonge au cœur des enjeux liés à la surveillance des astéroïdes susceptibles de menacer notre planète. Il revient notamment sur la mission DART, qui a permis de dévier la trajectoire d'un astéroïde en 2022, et sur le cas de l'astéroïde YR4, dont la probabilité d'impact avec la Terre a été fortement réduite grâce à une mobilisation internationale coordonnée. Découvrez comment les scientifiques font face à ces défis cosmiques.Ensuite, l'économiste Gabriel Zucman, professeur à l'École normale supérieure, vient expliquer les enjeux de la "taxe Zucman", un impôt sur le patrimoine des ultra-riches qui vient d'être adopté à l'Assemblée nationale. Il déconstruit les arguments contre cette mesure et montre en quoi elle s'inscrit dans une dynamique internationale visant à lutter contre les inégalités.Enfin, le journaliste scientifique Eric La Blanche nous entraîne dans un voyage passionnant à travers les "idées reçues" les plus tenaces de notre société. De la croyance selon laquelle les Vikings portaient des casques à cornes à l'idée que les somnambules ne doivent pas être réveillés, il décortique avec humour et pédagogie l'origine et les mécanismes de ces petits mensonges qui se transmettent de génération en génération.Cet épisode riche en découvertes vous fera remettre en question bon nombre de vos certitudes, tout en vous éclairant sur des enjeux cruciaux pour notre avenir. Préparez-vous à être surpris et à repenser ce que vous pensiez savoir !Notre équipe a utilisé un outil d'Intelligence artificielle via les technologies d'Audiomeans© pour accompagner la création de ce contenu écrit.

durée : 00:25:36 - 8h30 franceinfo - La ministre du Travail et de l'Emploi était l'invité du "8h30 franceinfo", jeudi 20 février 2025.

durée : 03:00:15 - Le 6/9 - par : Ali Baddou, Marion L'hour, Benjamin Dussy, Mathilde Khlat, Elodie Royer - Aujourd'hui dans le 6/9, nous recevons à 6h20 Nathalie Tehio, présidente de la Ligue des Droits de l'Homme. A 7h50, débat éco avec Dominique Seux et Thomas Porcher, et dans le grand entretien, l'activiste Camille Etienne et l'économiste Gabriel Zucman. - réalisé par : Marie MéRIER

Ce jeudi 13 février, le nouvel impôt planché sur la fortune et le budget alloué à la sécurité sociale, ont été abordés par Alain Villemeur, directeur scientifique de la Chaire TDTE, Christian Parisot, économiste et conseiller auprès d'Aurel BGC, et Christian Poyau, PDG de Micropole, dans l'émission Les Experts, présentée par Nicolas Doze sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au vendredi et réécoutez la en podcast.

Ce mercredi 12 février, l'utilité de la nouvelle taxe régionale des entreprises appelée "versement mobilité", la discussion autour de la taxe sur la fortune et ce que signifie la taxe Zucman, le patron de la CPME qui veut s'inspirer d'Elon Musk pour réduire les dépenses publiques, ainsi que le taux de chômage qui est en légère baisse, ont été abordés par Céline Antonin, économiste à l'OFCE, Sylvain Orebi, président d'Orientis et de Kusmi Tea, et Agnès Michel, associée chez Ixos Formation, dans l'émission Les Experts, présentée par Nicolas Doze sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au vendredi et réécoutez la en podcast.

Le procureur de la République d'Évry a évoqué les déclarations du jeune suspect interrogé. Placé en garde à vue pendant 48 heures après son interpellation, il a nié durant les premières 24 heures avoir rencontré ou tué Louise, 11 ans. Mais les analyses ADN ont révélé une correspondance entre son ADN et celui retrouvé sur les mains de la fillette. Lors de la prolongation de sa garde à vue, il a fini par avouer le meurtre, rapporte Raphaël Maillochon. Bruno Retailleau, le phénomène politique de l'hiver, se lance dans la course à la présidence des Républicains. D'après Arlette Chabot, il incarne le mythe de l'homme fort : il n'a peur de rien, il domine les sondages et il est le ministre préféré des Français. Aujourd'hui, il est perçu comme un responsable politique qui se concentre uniquement sur les problèmes essentiels du pays. Mais le plus grand risque pour lui reste la réaction de l'opinion publique. La Commission des finances a adopté le principe de la “taxe Zucman”, une proposition portée par les écologistes. Cette mesure vise à instaurer un taux plancher de 2 % sur les plus hauts patrimoines. Pascal Perri affirme qu'il s'agit d'un impôt destiné à contrer l'optimisation fiscale en neutralisant ses effets. Les écologistes estiment que cette taxe pourrait rapporter entre 15 et 25 milliards d'euros. Au Royaume-Uni, Keir Starmer et son gouvernement prennent une mesure radicale contre l'immigration. Désormais, les immigrés arrivés illégalement sur le sol britannique ne pourront plus obtenir la naturalisation. Selon Abnousse Shalmani, la question migratoire est l'une des causes principales de la montée des mouvements nationaux-populistes en Europe. Du lundi au vendredi, à partir de 18h, David Pujadas apporte toute son expertise pour analyser l'actualité du jour avec pédagogie.

La COP29 se déroule du 11 au 22 novembre à Bakou en Azerbaïdjan. Au cœur des discussions de ce grand rendez-vous pour le climat, ces questions : quel montant pour les pays en développement, et surtout, qui paie ? Les idées sont donc nombreuses pour financer l'aide climatique. En 2024, l'aide des pays riches pour les pays en développement est de 116 milliards de dollars par an. C'est conforme à ce qui avait été fixé il y a 15 ans à la COP de Copenhague, à savoir atteindre les 100 milliards de dollars d'aide par an à partir de 2020... Cet objectif a d'ailleurs été atteint avec un peu de retard en 2022. Mais les pays en développement demandent plus, évoquant une dette climatique contractée par les pays riches, qui ont contribué au changement climatique depuis plus d'un siècle. Par exemple, l'Inde, le groupe Afrique et le groupe arabe proposent de nouveaux objectifs de financement, de 1 000 à 1300 milliards de dollars par an à l'horizon 2030. Qui va payer ?C'est là que ça coince. De COP en COP, certains pays se sont enrichis et « changent de camp ». C'est par exemple le cas de la Chine, deuxième puissance économique mondiale, première pollueuse au monde, mais Pékin estime payer assez. Il y a aussi le cas des États-Unis avec le retour de Donald Trump à la Maison Blanche. Il a répété vouloir couper les financements mondiaux pour le climat. Et puis, il y a l'Europe qui veut contribuer davantage, mais qui n'en a pas les moyens, dans un contexte où les pays du continent adoptent des budgets d'austérité pour juguler leurs déficits.Il faut donc plusieurs acteurs. Les spécialistes font souvent la comparaison avec un oignon. Chaque épaisseur correspond à une couche de financement. En son cœur, les financements publics. Les couches plus périphériques correspondent à d'autres financements privés !De multiples formes de financementOn parle de plusieurs taxes, comme celles sur les transactions financières. Ce sont de petites taxes, entre 0,01 et 0,5 % et sont appliquées lorsqu'il y a achat-vente d'actions ou d'obligations. Puisque qu'il y a des milliers de transactions financières par minute, cela pourrait permettre de rapporter un produit fiscal conséquent et utile pour financer l'aide au développement. Le recours à cette option était d'ailleurs inenvisageable il y a quelques années, aujourd'hui, elle est de plus en plus prise au sérieux par les spécialistes et devient une piste concrète.D'autres taxes sont mises en avant comme, par exemple, la taxe sur les énergies fossiles. Toujours la même stratégie : une sorte d'impôt prélevé lors d'achat de charbon, de pétrole ou gaz. Taxation également sur le transport maritime, secteur très peu taxé. Les armateurs disposent d'un régime fiscal d'exception, d'autant que c'est un secteur qui pollue beaucoup également. Autre possibilité, le secteur aérien avec une sorte de taxe grands voyageurs. Le système fonctionnerait comme celui des Miles de fidélité mais à l'inverse : plus un passager prendrait l'avion, plus le prix du billet augmenterait.Les super-riches dans le viseurL'idée d'une ponction annuelle de 2 % sur le patrimoine des milliardaires fait son chemin. Cette taxe est surnommée la taxe Zucman, du nom de l'économiste qui l'a proposée. La mesure peut sembler intéressante car, aujourd'hui, ce sont 3 000 milliardaires de la planète qui échappent largement à l'impôt via de nombreuses stratégies fiscales. Cela pourrait rapporter 250 milliards de dollars par an. L'idée est donc que tout le monde participe au financement de l'aide climatique... D'ailleurs, la COP29 de Bakou sert à trouver une stratégie commune, de discuter de toutes ces options possibles afin que chacun y mette du sien et trouver des financements communs.

Les milliardaires sont dans le collimateur des députés qui ont voté il y a quelques jours une nouvelle taxe de 2% sur leur patrimoine. Une fausse bonne idée cet impôt Zucman ? Peut-on dire qu'en France on assiste à une impossible surtaxation des ultrariches ? Le point de vue de Jean Peyrelevade, économiste et ancien président du Crédit lyonnais. Ecorama du 11 novembre 2024 présenté par David Jacquot sur Boursorama.com. Hébergé par Audion. Visitez https://www.audion.fm/fr/privacy-policy pour plus d'informations.

C dans l'air du 28 octobre - Des impôts, des taxes …mais pas de budget !L'examen du budget est suspendu à l'Assemblée nationale, après six jours de discussions intenses dans l'hémicycle et une série de revers cinglants pour l'exécutif. Les députés ont en effet adopté, contre son avis, la création d'un nouvel impôt sur le patrimoine des milliardaires. Baptisée "taxe Zucman", du nom de l'économiste français Gabriel Zucman qui l'a conçue comme un impôt mondial sur les milliardaires, celle-ci consiste à taxer à hauteur de 2 % la fraction du patrimoine supérieure à un milliard d'euros. Elle concernerait, si elle était appliquée, tout milliardaire résidant fiscalement en France ou ayant du patrimoine en France. Les parlementaires ont également décidé de rendre pérenne la contribution exceptionnelle demandée aux entreprises de fret maritime, et plafonné à 500 millions d'euros la niche fiscale dont bénéficie ce secteur ; approuvé un rétablissement progressif de la CVAE (Cotisation sur la valeur ajoutée des entreprises) ; et supprimé un article prévoyant d'alourdir le « malus » pour les voitures essence et diesel. Ils ont par ailleurs voté une taxe exceptionnelle de 10 % sur les dividendes distribués par les entreprises du CAC40 et ont étendu à l'ensemble du territoire les prêts à taux zéro pour l'immobilier, dans le neuf (comme le proposait le gouvernement), mais aussi dans l'ancien.Le tout au gré d'alliances parfois changeantes ou du fait de l'absence de nombreux députés de la coalition gouvernementale dans l'hémicycle : si le Nouveau Front populaire a obtenu seul le rétablissement progressif de la CVAE, c'est une alliance hétéroclite d'élus RN, LR, socialistes et communistes qui a eu raison du malus automobile. Le MoDem de son côté après avoir voté de nombreux amendements en commission des finances avec la gauche rejoue la même partition dans l'hémicycle en additionnant ses voix au NFP pour par exemple pérenniser la surtaxe sur les hauts revenus au nom de la « justice sociale ». Une situation qui fait grincer des dents au sein de l'aile droite de la coalition gouvernementale. De son côté le président du Modem François Bayrou a dénoncé l'absence des députés du socle commun, notamment des élus du parti Renaissance dont les rangs étaient très dégarnis notamment vendredi 25 octobre jour du vote de la "taxe Zucman".La gauche et l'extrême droite accusent, eux, le camp du gouvernement de faire de l'"obstruction" et de ralentir les débats sur le projet de loi de Finances. Près de la moitié des amendements sur la partie "recettes" du budget ont été déposés par LR et la Macronie. Le NFP et le RN redoutent un manœuvre qui permettrait de transmettre le texte au Sénat, où Michel Barnier dispose d'une majorité, sans que les députés n'aient pu se prononcer. Ce qui lui permettrait ainsi d'éviter un rejet de son texte à l'Assemblée, et même d'utiliser le 49.3.Pour l'heure, le ministre du Budget a annoncé hier que les débats sur le projet de budget 2025 allaient reprendre dans l'hémicycle le 5 novembre prochain, toujours sur la première partie, celle des recettes. D'ici là c'est le budget de la Sécurité sociale que doivent examiner à partir de cet après-midi les parlementaires. Rejeté à l'unanimité en commission, le texte promet des débats électriques notamment sur le report de six mois de l'indexation des pensions de retraite sur l'inflation, des taxes sur le sucre ou encore sur le remboursement des consultations.Autant de points qui seront scrutés par les Français qui d'après les derniers sondages placent la santé comme premier sujet de préoccupation juste devant le pouvoir d'achat. Et ce alors que ce dernier a reculé dans notre pays en 2022 et 2023 pour les ménages d'après l'INSEE. Selon deux notes publiées la semaine dernière par l'institut, sur ces années l'augmentation des salaires a été inférieure à l'inflation. Ce qui fait que "le salaire net moyen a diminué de 0,8 % en euros constants en 2023 après -1% en 2022 (…) En 2023, le pouvoir d'achat des salaires a résisté en bas de l'échelle salariale, en raison notamment des revalorisations du SMIC, puis a diminué à mesure que l'on progresse dans la distribution. En conséquence, les inégalités salariales ont continué de diminuer". Plus précisément "le salaire net moyen des cadres a baissé de -2,8 % en 2023, celui des ouvriers et des employés de -0,3 % et -0,5 %" explique l'INSEE.Alors quels enseignements peut-on tirer de ce premier round au Palais Bourbon sur le budget 2025 ? Comment Michel Barnier compte-t-il faire adopter le projet de loi de Finances ? Le pouvoir d'achat des Français va-t-il baisser en 2025 ? Enfin que sait-on sur les coups de feu qui ont touché un enfant de 5 ans à Rennes samedi soir ? Les experts :- NATHALIE SAINT-CRICQ - Éditorialiste politique - France Télévisions- FANNY GUINOCHET - Éditorialiste économique - France Info et La Tribune - BRIGITTE BOUCHER - Journaliste politique -France info TV- JÉRÔME FOURQUET - Directeur département Opinion - Institut de sondages IFOP, auteur de "Métamorphoses françaises"DIFFUSION : du lundi au samedi à 17h45 FORMAT : 65 minutesPRÉSENTATION : Caroline Roux - Axel de Tarlé - REDIFFUSION : du lundi au vendredi vers 23h40PRODUCTION DES PODCASTS: Jean-Christophe ThiéfineRÉALISATION : Nicolas Ferraro, Bruno Piney, Franck Broqua, Alexandre Langeard, Corentin Son, Benoît LemoinePRODUCTION : France Télévisions / Maximal ProductionsRetrouvez C DANS L'AIR sur internet & les réseaux :INTERNET : francetv.frFACEBOOK : https://www.facebook.com/Cdanslairf5TWITTER : https://twitter.com/cdanslairINSTAGRAM : https://www.instagram.com/cdanslair/

Ce lundi 28 octobre, l'urgence pour le gouvernement de réduire l'absentéisme des fonctionnaires, qui a augmenté de 80% en dix ans et coûte 15 milliards d'euros par an, en alignant les règles du public sur celles du privé, ainsi que l'adoption de l'impôt Zucman, une sorte d'ISF qui taxe à 2% les patrimoines qui dépassent un milliard d'euros, ont été abordées par Éric Heyer, directeur du département analyse et prévision à l'OFCE, Gaëlle Macke, directrice déléguée de la rédaction de Challenges, et Philippe Mutricy, directeur des études de BPI France, dans l'émission Les Experts, présentée par Nicolas Doze sur BFM Business. Retrouvez l'émission du lundi au vendredi et réécoutez la en podcast.

#169 Alexandre Mergulhão e Pedro Almeida Jorge (pt1/2) - Pagamos impostos a mais em Portugal?   Alexandre Mergulhão é economista, formado na Nova SBE, e técnico superior no gabinete de estudos do Ministério das Finanças (GPEARI). É doutorando em Economia Política no Iscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa, onde também é professor Assistente Convidado. É autor do estudo “Fiscalidade em Portugal”, de que falámos muito neste episódio, publicado pela Associação Causa Pública, um think-tank que reune diferentes visões vindas da esquerda. Pedro Almeida Jorge é também formado pela Nova SBE e tem carreira na área de auditoria e consultoria fiscal a entidades do setor financeiro. Além disso, é coordenador da biblioteca e das traduções do Instituto Mais Liberdade, um think-tank com uma visão liberal, focado na defesa da liberdade individual e na economia de mercado. O Pedro tem coordenado a publicação de vários livros nesta linha em Portugal, como “Ambientalismo: Uma Visão de Mercado” e “Adam Smith Tinha Razão" de Rainer Zitelmann.   -> Apoie este podcast e faça parte da comunidade de mecenas do 45 Graus em: 45grauspodcast.com   -> Registe-se para ser avisado(a) de futuras edições dos workshops de Pensamento Crítico: https://forms.sendpulse.com/7e62c1e4f5 _______________ Índice: (0:00) Introdução   (06:02) INÍCIO da conversa | Porque há impostos progressivos? | Carga fiscal vs esforço fiscal | Impacto nos incentivos económicos | Taxa efectiva por escalão de rendimento | Esforço fiscal: índices de Bird e de Frank | Progressividade real de um sistema fiscal | Impostos sobre rendimento vs riqueza   (39:33) Porque os impostos indirectos (como o IVA) são sempre regressivos | Livro de F. HAyek - Constituição da Liberdade | Relação entre rendimento e felicidade | Joseph Stiglitz | Liberland   (59:45) O nosso sistema fiscal incentiva a emigração? | Quem emigra deveria continuar a pagar IRS em Portugal? | Saez, E., & Zucman, G. (2019). The triumph of injustice: How the rich dodge taxes and how to make them pay. | Lei FATCA (EUA) | Partido Libertário    (01:09:35) Como medir os serviços que cada um de nós obtém do Estado?   (01:22:35 ) IRS: como compara Portugal com outros países? | Estudo Banco de Portugal sobre IRS em Portugal (p 43) | Como é que a nossa fiscalidade impacta o crescimento económico? Tax Wedge    (1:30:42) Quanto paga cada escalão de rendimento de IRS em Portugal?| Segurança Social (TSU) | IRS progressivo desincentiva ao trabalho?

Grupul G20 a pus gând rău bogaților de pe planetă. Vrea să găsească o formulă prin care să taxeze averea miliardarilor lumii. Că va fi aplicată sau nu forma de suprataxare rămâne de văzut în următorii ani. Grupul G20 își pune din nou problema suprataxării bogaților. Astfel, președinția braziliană a G20, adică președintele Lula da Silva, a dorit să facă un pas înainte și a comandat un studiu care a fost realizat de economistul francez Gabriel Zucman. Acesta este profesor la Universitatea Berkeley din California și a prezentat săptămâna aceasta un raport tehnic înainte de reuniunea miniștrilor de finanțe din statele G20 care va avea loc luna viitoare.Gabriel Zucman este și președintele Observatorului fiscal european, iar studiul său îi vizează pe cei 3.000 miliardari ai planetei. Proiectul propune aplicarea unei taxe de 2% pe avere, ceea ce ar însemna strângerea între 200 și 250 miliarde de dolari.Economistul francez constată un fapt care le va plăcea mult politicienilor de stânga din România și anume că în multe țări există o erodare a bazei fiscale și că un sistem fiscal mai progresiv ar face posibilă consolidarea coeziunii sociale și a încrederii în guverne. Super bogații plătesc, proporțional, mai puține taxe decât alții, a spus profesorul Zucman.Se întâmplă acest lucru pentru că veniturile sunt impozitate mai mult decât averea, iar moștenirile sunt o parte importantă din averile miliardarilor. Gabriel Zucman a declarat săptămâna aceasta într-o conferință de presă că documentul tehnic pe care l-a propus nu este decât un punct de plecare pentru discuțiile politice. Raportul are 50 de pagini și propune un sistem fiscal mai echitabil care are ca obiectiv să strângă mai mulți bani din impozite și taxe de la cei mai bogați oameni din lume.Analiza evaluează rata medie efectivă de impozitare pentru cei bogați la numai 0,3% din averea lor. Totodată, studiul constată că averea celor mai bogați 0,0001% din oamenii de pe planetă a crescut de la 3% din PIB-ul global, în anul 1987, la aproximativ 14%, astăzi.Calculul profesorului francez sună cam așa: introducerea unei cote de impozitare de 2% asupra activelor de peste un miliard de dolari, în cazul a 3.000 de persoane, ar aduce o colectare în plus cu 200-250 miliarde de dolari.Dacă taxa se extinde și asupra averilor cuprinse între 100 milioane și un miliard de dolari, atunci la veniturile bugetare s-ar mai adăuga între 100 și 140 miliarde de dolari. Raportul profesorului francez notează că nu este nevoie de semnarea unui tratat multilateral care să fie aprobat apoi de Parlamentele naționale, ci fiecare stat poate să adopte sau nu acest tip de impozitare.Analiza arată că aproximativ jumătate din averea miliardarilor lumii este constituită din acțiuni la companiilor cotate la burse. Aceasta este partea cea mai transparentă și cea mai ușor identificabilă din punct de vedere fiscal.O a doua parte este formată din acțiuni la firme necotate. Aici, evaluarea și implicit taxarea este mai complicat de făcut. În fine, există și o a treia parte constituită din active precum opere de artă sau proprietăți de lux. Nivelul de impozitare trebuie privit prin prisma creșterii randamentului activelor pe care proprietarii le dețin. Gabriel Zucman arată în studiul său că în ultimii 40 de ani, creșterea valorii activelor a fost cu 7,5% pe an, scăzând inflația. Ceea ce înseamnă că aplicarea unei taxe de 2% ar duce randamentul la 5,5% pe an. Ceea ce este considerat suficient, dacă nu chiar prea mult. Nu am înțeles ce se întâmplă în anii în care valoarea acțiunilor sau a patrimoniului scade.Conform unui studiu Ipsos, 70% din populația țărilor din G20 se declară favorabilă suprataxării miliardarilor și de aceea, consideră Zucman propunerile sale pot fi aplicate cu succes. Este adevărat că introducerea unui impozit minim la nivel global pentru companiile multinaționale a durat nouă ani. Profesorul francez speră ca în cazul propunerii sale lucrurile să se miște mai repede. De altfel, sunt mai multe state, membre sau nu ale G20, care susțin ideea supraimpozitării bogaților. În Statele Unite, administrația Biden analizează introducerea unui plafon la impozitul pe venit de 25% pentru cei cu averi de miliarde de dolari. Dar, până la aplicarea unui impozit global mai este cale lungă. În orice caz, responsabilii brazilieni remarcă faptul că discuția a fost lansată. Probabil și premierul României este atent la dezbatere și tentat să acționeze. Doar o singură sugestie: să nu se grăbească să ia o decizie înainte de a se uita atent la cifre din România.  Rubrică susținută de SALT Bank, primul neobank 100% românesc.

O economista francês Gabriel Zucman, concedeu entrevista ao editor sênior do Poder360 Paulo Silva Pinto em 1º de março de 2024. A entrevista foi realizada por videoconferência.Zucman defende que empresas multinacionais paguem imposto mínimo de 15% sobre o lucro conforme acordo assinado em 2021 por 136 nações.Se o país onde fica a sede da empresa tiver alíquota menor, os países onde as empresas atuam poderão cobrar a diferença. No Brasil, grandes empresas já têm tributação acima disso sobre os lucros.

Hvor mye lovlig og ulovlig skattetriksing skjer i verden i dag? Og hva kan vi gjøre med det? En ny rapport fra verdensledende forskere gir svar.I denne episoden av Pengeland får vi besøk i studio av Andreas Økland, postdoktor ved NMBUs Skatteforsk. I tillegg snakket vi med Gabriel Zucman da han var på KÅKÅ|nomics i oktober. Zucman er økonomiprofessor på UC Berkley og Paris School of Economics, samt sjef for EU Tax Observatory. Zucman, sammen med Økland, Annette Alstadsæter med fler, lanserte i oktober rapporten Global Tax Evasion Report 2024, samt den nye nettsiden The Atlas of the Offshore World. Disse to ressursene gir nye tall på offshore-verden og velbegrunnede forslag til hvordan motvirke den skadelige effekten av skatteparadis. Sjekk ut Global Tax Evasion Report 2024 her: https://www.taxobservatory.eu/publication/global-tax-evasion-report-2024/og Atlas of the Offshore World her: https://atlas-offshore.worldProgramledere: Jonas Veland og Ingrid HjertakerLyd, video og musikk: Kristoffer LislegaardTakk til Kim Pilgaard som intervjuet Gabriel Zucman

Han regnes som en av verdens fremste unge økonomer. Gabriel Zucmans forslag er kontroversielle.Den 37 år gamle franskmannen fikk i april i år The John Bates Clark Medal fra den amerikanske organisasjonen for økonomer (AEA).Det er en pris som går til den økonomen under 40 år som arbeider i USA og som har "gitt det viktigste bidraget til økonomisk tenkning og kunnskap". 14 tidligere prisvinnere, deriblant Paul Krugman og Joseph Stiglitz, har senere fått Nobelprisen.I en spesialutgave av podkasten Finansredaksjonen forteller Zucman om hvorfor han mener det er så viktig å forske på skatt og ulikhet. Han startet i 2021 det uavhengige forskningsinstituttet EU Tax Observatory ved Paris School of Economics.Sammen med den norske skatteeksperten Annette Alstadsæter, som er professor ved NMBU, lanserte Zucman nylig en global skatterapport. Blant forslagene i rapporten er en global minimumsskatt på 25 prosent for selskaper og en formuesskatt for dollarmilliardærer på to prosent.I podkasten lanserer Zucman et forslag om at Norge bør innføre en langvarig eksilskatt for å hindre at skatteflukten til Sveits fører til store tap av skatteinntekter for Norge. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

durée : 00:09:17 - L'invité de 7h50 - par : Léa Salamé - L'économiste Gabriel Zucman présente la dernière mouture du rapport mondial sur l'évasion fiscale, qu'il a dirigé et qui a mobilisé une centaine de chercheurs.

durée : 02:59:19 - Le 7/10 - Les invités de la Matinale de ce Lundi 23 Octobre 2023 : Gabriel Zucman - Yaël Braun-Pivet - Jean-Pierre Mignard x Françis Szpiner - Alain Mabanckou x Pascal Blanchard x Abdourahman Waberi - Léa Griton

durée : 00:09:17 - L'invité de 7h50 - par : Léa Salamé - L'économiste Gabriel Zucman présente la dernière mouture du rapport mondial sur l'évasion fiscale, qu'il a dirigé et qui a mobilisé une centaine de chercheurs.

C'est un thème explosif : l'impôt. Les ultra riches en paient considérablement moins que les classes moyennes, et une partie des multinationales considérablement moins que les petites entreprises. De l'affaire Clearstream aux Pandora Papers, en passant par les Panama Papers : cela fait des décennies que les scandales s'enchaînent, révélant à chaque fois qu'une partie des plus aisés se livrent à des pratiques d'évasion fiscale ou d'optimisation fiscale. La logique, portée par de nombreux responsables politiques quand ils doivent rendre des comptes sur cette question, est simple : dans un contexte mondialisé, si l'on taxe des entreprises ou des individus qui ont les moyens de s'exiler, ils vont fuir notre territoire, il n'y aurait donc pas de solution sans accord international. Seulement cette idée reçue est en train d'être dynamisée par un économiste qui fait bouger les lignes ces dernières années. Les travaux de Gabriel Zucman sur l'évasion fiscale mènent à des conclusions très différentes : l'évasion fiscale existe toujours et nous aurions des solutions à la pelle pour y faire face, y compris à échelle nationale, et dans une courte temporalité. L'observatoire européen de la fiscalité dont il est le directeur sort un rapport qui offre des informations inédites. Que représente l'évasion fiscale aujourd'hui, quelles en sont les conséquences sur nos sociétés, quel impact ont-eu les outils fiscaux mis en place ces dernières années, comment pouvons-nous lutter concrètement contre ces privilèges des plus aisés, enfin, quelles mesures Emmanuel Macron pourrait-il mettre en place, là, demain, à l'échelle de la France pour changer les choses ? Salomé Saqué donne la parole à Gabriel Zucman pour répondre à toutes ces questions.

Um trilhão de dólares, cerca da metade do PIB do Brasil, é o valor que multinacionais continuam a sonegar de impostos pelo mundo, graças a manobras fiscais que as permitem contornar as cobranças, como o registro dos lucros em paraísos fiscais. A informação é de um relatório inédito realizado por uma vasta equipe de pesquisadores da Paris School of Economics, sob o comando do economista Gabriel Zucman, discípulo de Thomas Piketty. O relatório Evasão Fiscal Global 2024, divulgado nesta segunda-feira (23) pelo Observatório Fiscal Europeu, faz um balanço dos avanços que foram promovidos no tema desde a crise financeira de 2008, mas aponta que o caminho rumo à transparência continua nebuloso – inclusive dentro da Europa.“A evasão das empresas representa, hoje, cerca de US$ 1 trilhão de lucros que são registrados nos paraísos fiscais, mas que aconteceram na verdade na França, na Alemanha ou nos Estados Unidos. E o mais interessante é que essa evasão em massa não se passa em Macau ou no Panamá, mas sim na própria Europa”, explicou Zucman à emissora France Inter. “São a Microsoft ou a Apple que registram dezenas de bilhões de dólares de lucros na Irlanda, mas que na realidade foram realizados na França”, apontou, ressaltando que uma menor arrecadação significa menos investimentos dos Estados em saúde, educação ou no combate às desigualdades.O montante também faz falta num momento em que os países ao redor do mundo buscam cobrir a explosão dos gastos dos Estados com a pandemia de coronavírus – e que levou muitos a se endividarem em patamares perigosos, como a própria França.Imposto mínimo de 15% ainda tem falhasO economista salienta que, desde 2017, a cooperação internacional entre os organismos fiscais deu um salto, sob o impulso de decisões do G20 e da OCDE. A maior transparência permitiu dividir por três as riquezas detidas em paraísos fiscais. Em 2021, 140 países concordaram com a aplicação de uma taxa mínima de 15% sobre os lucros no exterior, algo inédito. Entretanto, as grandes empresas e o bilionários continuam encontrando novas fórmulas para escapar dos impostos.“Infelizmente, desde 2021, uma série de desonerações a essa regra foram introduzidas. A mais importante e a mais problemática é uma chamada de ‘desoneração por substância', que significa que quanto mais uma empresa está implantada num paraíso fiscal, mais ela poderá excluir lucros da cobrança da taxa mínima de 15%”, assinala Zucman à France Inter. “Ou seja, é um convite para enviar ao máximo a atividade para os paraísos fiscais como Irlanda, Suíça ou Holanda.”Embora o fim do sigilo bancário e os impostos mínimos sobre as sociedades tenham encerrado décadas de concorrência entre países por menores taxas de impostos, alguns ativos ainda escapam da cobrança, sinaliza o relatório. O documento afirma que a alíquota média paga pelos bilionários oscila apenas entre 0 e 0,5% da fortuna, graças às manobras fiscais que, quase sempre, utilizam empresas de fachada.2% de imposto mundial para os 3 mil mais ricos“Não gosto de usar casos individuais, mas vou dar um exemplo só para explicar o fenômeno: o da família Arnault, que em 2023 ganhou € 3 bilhões em dividendos graças aos lucros da sociedade LVMH em 2022. Para um acionista normal, teria uma taxa de 30% que se aplicaria aos dividendos. Mas a família Arnault não pagou € 900 milhões em impostos”, afirma Zucman. “Pagou zero, ou quase isso, porque os dividendos são transferidos a holdings, que não são sujeitas ao imposto de renda de pessoas físicas.”O relatório Evasão Fiscal Global em 2024 propõe seis medidas para o combate ao problema, entre elas um imposto global de 2% sobre a fortuna dos bilionários. A cobrança recairia sobre menos de 3 mil pessoas no mundo, alegam os pesquisadores, e resultaria em US$ 250 bilhões a mais de arrecadação ao ano para os países.Se a proposta fosse estendida às multinacionais, o valor dobraria. “Para dar uma ideia das magnitudes envolvidas, estudos recentes estimam que os países em desenvolvimento precisam de US$ 500 bilhões adicionais por ano para enfrentar os desafios das mudanças climáticas”, salienta o documento.

Did you miss any of The Rich Zeoli Show this week? It's ok. We forgive you. But now is your chance to catch-up on all the action: Jack Carr—former U.S. Navy SEAL sniper & New York Times #1 Best-Selling Author—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss his newest book, “Only the Dead.” “Only the Dead” is the sixth book in Carr's Terminal List series and releases on May 16th. You can learn more about the book and pre-order it here: https://www.officialjackcarr.com Patrick Moore—co-founder of Greenpeace & author of “Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom”—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss four whale deaths in the New York and New England areas in a four-day period earlier this month. Dr. Moore believes “the acoustic systems used by vessels surveying the ocean floor” for wind turbine construction may be contributing to the massive number of whales being beached and killed along the Atlantic Coast. Why aren't government officials halting these environmentally problematic ocean floor surveys?You can read more here (article by Joshua Rhett Miller and Franklin Raff of The New York Post): https://nypost.com/2023/05/08/not-unreasonable-to-link-whale-deaths-offshore-wind-farm-work-ex-greenpeace-chief-says/ Dr. Phillip Magness—Economic & Political Historian and Author of “The 1619 Project: A Critique—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the American Economics Association (AEA) awarding University of California Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman with the prestigious John Bates Clark medal. Zucman is best known for research associated with the far-left's claim that billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the middle class—but, as Dr. Magness explains, an investigation into his research revealed that his data was purposefully manipulated to advance his preferred policies. 

Dr. Phillip Magness—Economic & Political Historian and Author of “The 1619 Project: A Critique—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the American Economics Association (AEA) awarding University of California Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman with the prestigious John Bates Clark medal. Zucman is best known for research associated with the far-left's claim that billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the middle class—but, as Dr. Magness explains, an investigation into his research revealed that his data was purposefully manipulated to advance his preferred policies.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Hour 4: Following Bud Light's catastrophic promotion with LGBTQ+ activist Dylan Mulvaney, Yuengling has announced they will launch limited-edition “Team Red, White, & Blue” cans that will honor American servicemembers. With Title 42 set to expire tomorrow, President Joe Biden spoke briefly with the press about the surge of undocumented migrants expected to cross the U.S. southern border within the next 24 hours. According to CNN reporting, more than 150,000 migrants are waiting along the U.S. southern border. Meanwhile, while speaking on the House floor, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib seemingly defended any influx of illegal migration that results from ending Title 42. While speaking during a House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) accused Republicans of wanting to bring back slavery. Dr. Phillip Magness—Economic & Political Historian and Author of “The 1619 Project: A Critique—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the American Economics Association (AEA) awarding University of California Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman with the prestigious John Bates Clark medal. Zucman is best known for research associated with the far-left's claim that billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the middle class—but, as Dr. Magness explains, an investigation into his research revealed that his data was purposefully manipulated to advance his preferred policies.

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (05/10/2023): 3:05pm- On Wednesday, members of the House Oversight Committee held a news conference to share information they discovered during an investigation into the Biden family's involvement with overseas businesses. While speaking with the press, Congressman James Comer (R-KY) stated that according to bank records, “the Biden family—their associates and their companies—received over $10 million from foreign nationals and their companies.” In one specific incident, the House Oversight Committee alleges there was a financial relationship between the Biden family and a Romanian national who, in the past, has been convicted of corruption—a financial relationship that ended soon after Joe Biden left office as Vice President in January of 2017. 3:30pm- With Title 42 set to expire tomorrow, President Joe Biden spoke briefly with the press about the surge of undocumented migrants expected to cross the U.S. southern border within the next 24 hours. According to CNN reporting, more than 150,000 migrants are waiting along the U.S. southern border. 3:40pm- According to Jessica Chasmar of Fox News, House Oversight Committee Republicans are reporting “President Biden's White House Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates has been implicated in the effort to discredit Hunter Biden's laptop as Russian disinformation during the 2020 presidential election.” You can read the full article here: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bidens-white-house-spox-implicated-effort-discredit-hunter-biden-laptop-email 3:55pm- While speaking with Sean Hannity on Fox News, Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH) explained that Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officials attempted to debunk and terminate the Hunter Biden laptop story before members of the media were even able to report on it. 4:05pm- While holding a news conference in Washington, D.C. ahead of the expiration of Title 42, Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas insisted the Biden Administration has been “effective” in managing the U.S. southern border and reiterated that the border is not open. 4:15pm- According to a report from Tim Pearce of The Daily Wire, “[t]he Biden administration has brought back a Trump-era immigration rule the day before Title 42 is scheduled to sunset and encourage a wave of illegal immigration into the U.S. The rule, finalized and published in the Federal Register on Wednesday, disqualifies migrants from applying for asylum in the U.S. if they neglected to first apply for asylum in other countries they traveled through, such as Mexico.” You can read the read the full article here: https://www.dailywire.com/news/in-major-reversal-biden-resurrects-trump-border-policy-ahead-of-title-42-repeal 4:20pm- What is “childism”? And is it the next big fight in the culture war? 4:40pm- While appearing on Fox News with Kayleigh McEnany, former Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard spoke out against the Democrat party's endorsement of gender affirming surgeries for children. 4:55pm- Following an unproductive meeting with House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, President Joe Biden said he has considered using language within the 14th Amendment to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling. 5:05pm- The Drive at 5: During Tuesday's press briefing, Fox News reporter Jacqui Heinrich asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre if Senator Mitt Romney (R-UT) is a “MAGA Republican” for wanting a conversation on federal spending before raising the debt limit. 5:10pm- Following a meeting with President Joe Biden and Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) blamed House Republicans for not any failure to raise the debt ceiling. 5:20pm- Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau—the son of Pierre Trudeau and definitely not the son of former Cuban dictator Fidel Castro—somehow forgot his own name while addressing parliament. 5:45pm- In a Wall Street Journal opinion editorial, David Bernhardt argues: “Grade-school civics teaches that Washington is designed to operate under a system of checks and balances, constrained by the Constitution and empowered by the consent of the governed. In practice, however, power has become concentrated in the executive branch and largely wielded by unaccountable career bureaucrats. The notion of a “deep state” isn't a conspiratorial talking point but a manifest political reality.” You can read the full article here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-deep-state-is-all-too-real-congress-chevron-delegation-civics-hunter-biden-985ed65e?mod=opinion_lead_pos5 6:05pm- Following Bud Light's catastrophic promotion with LGBTQ+ activist Dylan Mulvaney, Yuengling has announced they will launch limited-edition “Team Red, White, & Blue” cans that will honor American servicemembers. 6:30pm- With Title 42 set to expire tomorrow, President Joe Biden spoke briefly with the press about the surge of undocumented migrants expected to cross the U.S. southern border within the next 24 hours. According to CNN reporting, more than 150,000 migrants are waiting along the U.S. southern border. Meanwhile, while speaking on the House floor, Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib seemingly defended any influx of illegal migration that results from ending Title 42. 6:35pm- While speaking during a House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Congressman Hank Johnson (D-GA) accused Republicans of wanting to bring back slavery. 6:45pm- Dr. Phillip Magness—Economic & Political Historian and Author of “The 1619 Project: A Critique—joins The Rich Zeoli Show to discuss the American Economics Association (AEA) awarding University of California Berkeley economist Gabriel Zucman with the prestigious John Bates Clark medal. Zucman is best known for research associated with the far-left's claim that billionaires pay a lower tax rate than the middle class—but, as Dr. Magness explains, an investigation into his research revealed that his data was purposefully manipulated to advance his preferred policies.

As Tax Day approaches in the United States, we're revisiting our conversation with Gabriel Zucman, the authority on wealth taxes. For the last 40 years, trickle-down politicians have slashed tax rates on the rich, benefiting the wealthy few at the expense of the American middle class. Zucman explains how the rich manage to dodge taxes, and how we can fix this broken system. This episode originally aired on November 26, 2019. Gabriel Zucman is now Professor of Economics at the Paris School of Economics and Ecole Normale Supérieure – PSL, Associate Professor of Economics at the University of California, Berkeley, Director of the EU Tax Observatory, and Director of the James M. and Cathleen D. Stone Center on Wealth and Income Inequality at UC Berkeley. Twitter: @gabriel_zucman The Triumph of Injustice: https://wwnorton.com/books/the-triumph-of-injustice The Wealth Detective Who Finds the Hidden Money of the Super Rich: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2019-05-23/the-wealth-detective-who-finds-the-hidden-money-of-the-super-rich Website: http://pitchforkeconomics.com Twitter: @PitchforkEcon Instagram: @pitchforkeconomics Nick's twitter: @NickHanauer

Hij is nog maar 36 jaar oud, maar wordt nu al gezien als een van de grootste deskundigen als het gaat om de vele, vele manieren waarop (extreem) rijke mensen proberen zo min mogelijk belasting te betalen. We hadden het voorrecht om hem te mogen interviewen tijdens zijn korte bezoek aan Nederland: Gabriel Zucman. De jonge Franse professor studeerde aan de Paris School of Economics, met ene Thomas Piketty als zijn mentor. Zijn eerste werkdag viel precies op de maandag nadat de bank Lehman Brothers was omgevallen en de financiële crisis begon. En hij is onderdeel van een hele nieuwe generatie van economen die baanbrekend onderzoek doen naar ongelijkheid. Zelfs als je nog nooit van hem hebt gehoord, dan heb je waarschijnlijk wel een van zijn grafieken gezien – bijvoorbeeld over de dramatische groei van de ongelijkheid in de Verenigde Staten in de afgelopen vijftig jaar. Zijn cijfers zijn eindeloos geciteerd door politici als Bernie Sanders – bijvoorbeeld het feit dat de rijkste 1 procent van de Amerikanen in totaal bijna evenveel vermogen bezit als de armste 90 procent van de bevolking. Enfin, in deze podcast gaan we behoorlijk de diepte in met Zucman. Hoe groot is de belastingontwijking en -ontduiking door de rijken? Hoe betrouwbaar zijn al die statistieken eigenlijk? En hoe kunnen we het belastingstelsel verbeteren? Leesvoer bij deze aflevering: • Zucman stond samen met zijn Frans-Amerikaanse collega Emmanuel Saez eerder in The New York Times als meest zichtbare en polariserende econoom van de Amerikaanse verkiezingen van 2020. (https://corr.es/43d52f) • We bespraken kort het paper Inequality and Redistribution in the Netherlands van Wouter Leenders et al. (https://corr.es/769cd5) • Een volledig overzicht van de inkomsten die landen mislopen door winstverschuiving is te vinden op missingprofits.world. (https://corr.es/336f39) • Lees ook een van de eerdere artikelen van Zucman zelf, The Missing Wealth of Nations, over hoe activa van landen in het buitenland niet goed op waarde geschat worden. (https://corr.es/5d521d)

Hij is nog maar 36 jaar oud, maar wordt nu al gezien als een van de grootste deskundigen als het gaat om de vele, vele manieren waarop (extreem) rijke mensen proberen zo min mogelijk belasting te betalen. We hadden het voorrecht om hem te mogen interviewen tijdens zijn korte bezoek aan Nederland: Gabriel Zucman. De jonge Franse professor studeerde aan de Paris School of Economics, met ene Thomas Piketty als zijn mentor. Zijn eerste werkdag viel precies op de maandag nadat de bank Lehman Brothers was omgevallen en de financiële crisis begon. En hij is onderdeel van een hele nieuwe generatie van economen die baanbrekend onderzoek doen naar ongelijkheid. Zelfs als je nog nooit van hem hebt gehoord, dan heb je waarschijnlijk wel een van zijn grafieken gezien – bijvoorbeeld over de dramatische groei van de ongelijkheid in de Verenigde Staten in de afgelopen vijftig jaar. Zijn cijfers zijn eindeloos geciteerd door politici als Bernie Sanders – bijvoorbeeld het feit dat de rijkste 1 procent van de Amerikanen in totaal bijna evenveel vermogen bezit als de armste 90 procent van de bevolking. Enfin, in deze podcast gaan we behoorlijk de diepte in met Zucman. Hoe groot is de belastingontwijking en -ontduiking door de rijken? Hoe betrouwbaar zijn al die statistieken eigenlijk? En hoe kunnen we het belastingstelsel verbeteren? Leesvoer bij deze aflevering: • Zucman stond samen met zijn Frans-Amerikaanse collega Emmanuel Saez eerder in The New York Times als meest zichtbare en polariserende econoom van de Amerikaanse verkiezingen van 2020. (https://corr.es/43d52f) • We bespraken kort het paper Inequality and Redistribution in the Netherlands van Wouter Leenders et al. (https://corr.es/769cd5) • Een volledig overzicht van de inkomsten die landen mislopen door winstverschuiving is te vinden op missingprofits.world. (https://corr.es/336f39) • Lees ook een van de eerdere artikelen van Zucman zelf, The Missing Wealth of Nations, over hoe activa van landen in het buitenland niet goed op waarde geschat worden. (https://corr.es/5d521d)

Welcome to Ideas Untrapped. My guest today is Vincent Geloso who is a professor of economics at George Mason University. He studies economic history, political economy, and the measurement of living standards. In today's episode, we discuss the differences between democracies and dictatorships, and their relative performance in socioeconomic development. The allure of authoritarian governance has grown tremendously due to the economic success of countries like China, Korea, and Singapore - which managed to escape crippling national poverty traps. The contestable nature of democracies and the difficulty many democratic countries have to continue on a path of growth seems to many people as evidence that a benevolent dictatorship is what many countries need. Vincent challenges this notion and explains many seemingly high-performing dictatorships are so because their control of state resources allows them direct investments towards singular objectives - (such as winning Olympic medals or reducing infant mortality) but at the same time, come with a flip side of unseen costs due to their lack of rights and economic freedom. He argues that the benefits of dictatorships are not as great as they may seem and that liberal democracies are better able to decentralize decision-making and handle complex multi-variate problems. He concludes that while democracies may not always be successful in achieving certain objectives, the constraints they place on political power and rulers mean that people are better off in terms of economic freedom, rights, and other measures of welfare.TRANSCRIPTTobi;You made the point that dictatorships usually optimise, not your words, but they optimise for univariate factors as opposed to multiple factors, which you get in democracy. So, a dictatorship can be extremely high performing on some metric because they can use the top-down power to allocate resources for that particular goal. Can you shed a bit more light on that? How does that mechanism work in reality?Vincent;Yeah, I think a great image people are used to is the USSR, and they're thinking about two things the USSR did quite well: putting people in space before the United States and winning medals at Olympics. Now, the regime really wanted to do those two things. [That is], win a considerable number of medals in [the] Olympics and win the space race. Both of them were meant to showcase the regime's tremendous ability. It was a propaganda ploy, but since it was a single objective and they had immense means at their disposal, i. e. the means that coercion allows them, they could reach those targets really well. And it's easy to see the Russians putting Sputnik first in space, the Russians putting Laika first in space. We can see them winning medals. It's easy to see. The part that is harder to see, the unseen, is the fact that Russians were not enjoying rapidly rising living standards, they were not enjoying improvements in medical care that was commensurate with their level of income, they were not enjoying high-quality education. You can pile all the unseens of the ability of the USSR as a dictatorship to allocate so much resources to two issues, [which] meant that it came with a flip side, which is that these resources were not available for people to allocate them in ways that they thought was more valuable. So, the virtue of a liberal democracy, unlike a dictatorship, is that a liberal democracy has multiple sets of preferences to deal with. And in a liberal democracy, it's not just the fact that we vote, but also that people have certain rights that are enshrined and which are not the object of political conversation. I cannot seize your property, and it's not okay for people to vote with me to seize your property. And in these societies, the idea is that under a liberal democracy, you are better able to decentralize decision-making, and people can find ways to deal with the multiple trade-offs much better. Whereas a dictatorship can just decide, I care about this. I am king, I am president, I am first secretary of the party, I decide this and we'll do this regardless of how much you value other things that I value less than you do.Tobi;Two things that I want you to shed more light on. Depending on who you talk to or what they are criticizing, people usually selectively pick their dictatorships. If someone is criticizing, say, for example, capitalism, they always point to the Cuban health care system in contrast to the American health care system. How the American system is so terrible, and how capitalism makes everything worse because of the profit motive. And how we can do better by being more like Cuba.  On the other end of that particular spectrum, if you're talking about economic development, critics of democracy like to point to China. China is not a democracy. And look at all the economic growth they've had in the last 40 years, one of the largest reductions in human poverty we've ever seen in history. I mean, from these two examples, what are the shortcomings of these arguments?Vincent; Let's do Cuba first, then we can do China. So, the Cuban example is really good for the case I'm making. Because the case I'm making is essentially that the good comes with the bad and you can't remove them. So, people will generally say with Cuba, “yes, we know they don't have political rights, they don't have economic freedom, but they do have high-quality health care.” And by this they don't mean actually health care, they mean low infant mortality or high life expectancy at birth. My reply is, it's because they don't have all these other rights and all these other options [that] they can have infant mortality that is so low. That's because the regime involves a gigantic amount of resources to the production of healthcare. Cuba spends more than 10% of its GDP on health care. Only countries that are seven or ten times richer than Cuba spend as much as a proportion of GDP on health care. 1% of their population are doctors. In the United States, it is a third of that, 0.3% of the population are doctors. So, it's a gigantic proportion. But then when you scratch a bit behind, doctors are, for example, members of the army. They are part of the military force. The regime employs them as the first line of supervision. So, the doctors are also meant to report back what the population says on the ground. So, they're basically listening posts for the dictatorship. And in the process, yeah, they provide some health care, but they're providing some health care as a byproduct of providing surveillance.The other part is that they're using health care here to promote the regime abroad. And that has one really important effect. One of those is that doctors have targets they must meet, otherwise they're penalized. And when I mean targets, I mean targets for infant mortality. [If] they don't meet those targets, the result is they get punished. And so what do you think doctors do? They will alter their behaviour to avoid punishment. So in some situations, they will reclassify what we call early neonatal death. So, babies who die immediately after exiting the womb to seven days after birth, they will reclassify many of those as late fetal deaths. And late fetal deaths are in-utero deaths or delivery of a dead baby so that the baby exits the womb dead. Now, if a mortality rate starts with early neonatal death [and] not late fetal ones, so if you can reclassify one into the other, you're going to deflate the number total. And the reason why we can detect this is that the sources of both types of mortality are the same,[they] are very similar, so that when you compare them across countries, you generally find the same ratio of one to the other. Generally, it hovers between four to one and six to one. Cuba has a ratio of twelve to 17 to one, which is a clear sign of data manipulation. And it's not because the regime does it out of, like, direct intent. They're not trying to do it directly. It'd be too easy to detect. But by changing people's incentives, doctors' incentives, in that case, that's what they end up with.There are also other things that doctors are allowed to do in Cuba. One of them is that patients do not have the right to refuse treatment. Neither do they have the right to privacy, which means that doctors can use heavy-handed methods to make sure that they meet their targets. So in Cuba, you have stuff like casa de mata nidad, where mothers who have at-risk pregnancies or at-risk behaviour during pregnancy will be forcibly incarcerated during their pregnancy. There are multiple cases of documented, pressured abortions or literally coerced abortions. So not just pressured, but coerced. Like, the level is that the person wants to keep the infant, the doctor forces an abortion to be made. Sometimes, it is made without the mother's knowledge until it is too late to anything being done. So you end up with basically the infant mortality rate, yes, being low, but yes, being low because of data manipulation and changes in behaviour so that the number doesn't mean the same thing as it does in rich countries. And now the part that's really important in all I'm saying is [that] what people call the benefits for Cuba is relatively small. My point is that, yeah, maybe they could be able to do it. But the problem is that the measures that allow this to happen, to have a low infant mortality rate are also the measures that make Cubans immensely poor. The fact that the regime can deploy such force, use doctors in such a way, employ such extreme measures, it's the reason why Cubans also don't have property rights, don't have strong economic freedom, don't have the liberty to trade with others. Which means that on other dimensions, their lives are worse off. That means that, for example, their incomes are lower than they could be. They have higher maternal mortality. So, mothers die to [a] greater proportion in labour than in other countries or post-labour. There are lower rates of access to clean water than in equally poor countries in Latin America. There are lower levels of geographic mobility within the country, there are lower levels of nutrition because, for example, there are still ration services. So that means that, yes, they have certain amount of calories, but they don't have that much diversity in terms of what they're allowed or are able to eat without resorting to the black market. Pile these on. These are all dimensions of life that Cubans get to not enjoy because the regime has so much power to do that one thing relatively well. Let's assume it's relatively well, but the answer is, well, would you want to make that trade-off? And most people would probably, if given the choice, would not make the choice of having this. So, those who are saying, “look at how great it is,” are being fooled by the nature of what dictatorships are. Dictatorships can solve simple problems really well, but complex multivariate problems, they are not able to do it in any meaningful way.The other part that is going to be of also importance is when you look at Cuba, before we move on to China, the other part about Cuba that's worth pointing out is, I was assuming in my previous answer that the regime was actually doing relatively well. Even without considering all the criticism, it still looks like it has a low infant mortality rate. But when you actually look at the history of Cuba, Cuba was exceptional in terms of low infant mortality. Before the Castros took over, Cuba already had a very low level of infant mortality even for a poor country. And so with a friend of mine, a coauthor, Jamie Bologna Pavlik, we used an econometric method to see if Cuba has an infant mortality rate that is as low as it would have been had it not been for the revolution. So, ergo, we're trying to find what is the effect of the revolution on infant mortality and we're trying to use other Latin American countries to predict Cuba's health performance. And what we find is that in the first year of the regime's, infant mortality actually went up, so it increased relative to other Latin American countries, but it gradually reverted back to what would be the long-run trend. So that Cuba is no more exceptional today in terms of infant mortality than it was in 1959. That is actually a very depressing statement because it's saying that the regime wasn't even able to make the country more exceptional. So even if it's able to achieve that mission quite well, it's not clear how well they've done it. At the very least, they haven't made things worse in the very long run, they only made things worse in the short run. So when you're doing, like, kind of, a ledger of goods and bads of the regime, all the bad trade-offs I mentioned: lower incomes, higher mortality rates for mothers and maternity, lower rates of access to clean water, lower rates of access to diverse food sources, lower rates of geographic mobility - pile these on, keep piling them on, that's the cost. What I'm saying is what they call the benefits, they're not even as big as it's disclaimed. The benefits are relatively small.And now with regards to China…Tobi;Yeah.Vincent;The Chinese case is even worse for people because they have a similar story with GDP. So, in China, a regional bureaucrats have to meet certain targets of economic growth. Now, these same bureaucrats are in charge of producing the data that says whether or not there is economic growth. You can see why there is a who guards the guardian's problem here? The person who guards the guardian is apparently one of the guardians. So you could expect some kind of bad behaviour. And there is an economist, Luis Martinez, out of the University of Chicago. What he did is he say, well, we have one measure that we know is a good reflector of economic growth and it is artificial light intensity at night. Largely because the richer a country is, the more light there will be at night time. And so if you have like 1% growth in income, in real numbers, you should have some form of commensurate increase in light intensity during night time. If the two deviates, it's a sign that the GDP numbers are false, that they're misleading. Because if they deviate, the true number, the always true number will be the light intensity at nighttime. So, when Martinez used the nighttime light to compare GDP in Chinese regions overall and the actual GDP, he found that you can cut the growth rate of China by, maybe, two-fifths, so it is 40% slower than it actually is. So, China is not even as impressive as it is. And the thing is now think about the pandemic, think about how extreme the measures that China deployed to restrain this has been, no liberal democracy would have been able to do that, no free society would have tolerated forcibly walling people into their houses. And there are massive downsides to the communist regime in China. Like, yes, the regime is free to do whatever it wants, but it also means that it can put Uyghur Muslims into concentration camps. It also means that it can wall people into their houses when they do not comply with public health order. It also means that people are under the social credit system where they are being largely surveilled on a daily basis. It also means that the government can allocate massive resources to the act of conquering Taiwan or flexing muscles towards Japan. All things that when you think about it, is that really an improvement in welfare? Obviously, you can say that, oh yeah, they're doing X or Y things really well but here are all the bad things that come with this. And those bad things are on net much worse than the good things.Tobi;Now, you keep emphasizing liberal democracy and I want to get at the nuance here because I've seen several results. Either it is from Chile and other countries that say unequivocally that democracies are better for growth than dictatorships, even in the case of Chile, despite all the reforms of Pinochet regime. But what I want to get at is, what exactly about democracies make them better? Because, for example, we can think of Nigeria and Nigeria as a democracy. We've had uninterrupted election cycles for over two decades now, but there's still very weak rule of law. Successive governments still rely on extracting oil rents, basically. And, the degree to which people enjoy rights vary depending on who is in power or their mood on any particular day. And, of course, Nigeria is a democracy. So is it liberal democracy? Is that the key factor?Vincent;So, think about it this way.Tobi;Yeah.Vincent;Think about it this way. Inside the big box of liberal democracy, there is for sure democracy. But the part that makes the box liberal democracy is not only the smaller babushkadal inside that box which is a democracy one, it is the other constraints that we put on the exercise of political power. The true definition of a liberal democracy, at least in my opinion, is that not only are people allowed to vote, but they are restraints on what we can vote on. So, for example, if it's not legitimate for me to steal from you, it is no more legitimate for me to vote with two other people to steal from you. The act of democracy should warrant some acts that are outside the realm of political decision-making. There are also constraints that exist on rulers, so it's not just that there are some rights that are not subject to conversation. There could be also incentives that prevent rulers from abusing the powers they have. That would mean, for example, checks and balances, where there are different chambers that will compete with each other, different regional powers of government that will compete with each other for jurisdiction, and so they will keep each other in balance. It could also be some form of external constraint, because a liberal democracy can also rely on external constraints upon political actors. It could be the fact that people can leave the country, the fact that taxpayers can migrate to another country, puts pressure on politicians to not abuse them. People can move their capital out of the country, [this] creates a pressure on politicians to not try to steal from them, because people will just remove all the productive capital and the ruler will be left with very little to exploit as a result, regardless of whether or not the ruler is elected or not. So the way to think about this is liberal democracy is, you want to have a system where there are rules, incentives, constraints that make it so that we are not betting on a man or a woman, for that matter, being the correct man and woman for the moment. We care about a set of incentives, constraints, and rules that will make sure that even the worst human being possible will feel compelled or compulsed [sic] to do the right thing. So, that's like the old Milton Friedman thing, it's like “I don't want the right man. I want to have a system that makes sure that even the most horrible person on earth is forced to do the right thing.” That's what a liberal democracy is.Now, it is a broad definition that I've provided. It is not narrow in any way. It is not specific, largely because I don't think it can be what works. It's not everywhere the same. The general family to which this belongs is universal. But the way it can work is not the same everywhere. A homogeneous, small, Sweden probably doesn't need as much level of, say, breakdown of provincial versus federal powers. Whereas, from what I understand, Nigeria is a somewhat multinational country, multiethnic country with multiple groups east and west from what I understand the divide is in Nigeria. There, it might be good to have a division inside the country where things that are most homogeneous, you leave to the federal government, to the highest level of power. Then the things that you can delegate to the local level, [it is] better to do it that way. Countries that are incredibly heterogeneous maybe need even more federalism. What is optimal for one place won't work elsewhere. So I couldn't take Belgian institutions and then just dump them in Nigeria. Same as I couldn't just say, well, let's take Swedish institutions and dump them into Canada. But what makes generally Sweden work better in terms of institutions than Nigeria, for example, is the fact that Sweden does fit in that general box of liberal democracy. There are clear constraints, there are restrictions, there are constitutions that are well respected, there's a strong rule of law, and politicians are compelled to not fall prey to their own baser instincts.Tobi;  A couple of months ago, I had Mark Koyama on the show.Vincent; Great guy. He's a colleague of mine.Tobi;Yeah. So, we were talking about state capacity. We're talking about his book with Noel Johnson. So I did bring up your paper on state capacity, [in] which, basically, one description that stuck with me is that you never really find a poor, but highly capable state in history…Vincent;You mean backwards. A rich society with an incapable state?  Tobi; Yes, a rich society with an incapable state. Thanks for that. So, I've been trying to disentangle this state capacity thing, I know Bryan Caplan basically dismissed it as a sleight of hand. Right. So, like, how does it work and how is it a necessary ingredient for economic development, so to speak?Vincent; I am actually quite respectful of the state capacity literature in one way. So let me do like kind of a quick thing. State capacity says that you want the state to be able to do certain missions. Right, so we're not making judgments as to whether the mission is good. State capacity is about the abilities of the state. The reason why that literature has emerged since the 2000… here's a story of economic thought really briefly: in the 1950s, Samuelson and others show, ‘oh, well, there are market failures' and then a few years later there are the public choice rebuttals, where the public choice economists say, ‘well, you're kind of wrong. There are also government failures.' And the state capacity crowd tries to come in between these two and say, ‘yeah, there are market failures and there are government failures. How do we get a state to solve the market failures but not fall into government failures?' Okay, straightforward, good argument. The part that I'm sceptical of is that the argument of the state capacity crowd is that you will have a lot of rich societies that will have strong states, you will have much fewer societies that have strong states but are very poor (the USSR would be a good example of that), [and] you will have a lot of societies that are poor and have weak state. The thing is that they can't seem to explain why it is under their theory that there are no societies that are relatively weak state but rich. Even though in history we do have many examples of these and they collapse all the time.The argument that I make with my colleague, Alexander Salter, is that societies that have weak states will fall prey to predation because their neighbours with stronger state will try to capture their wealth by conquest. If they are conquered, they grow immensely poor, they are made poor. Basically, it's a terrible event for them. Or they resist, and if they resist ably, the result from resistance is that they have to build a strong state themselves to resist predation by other rulers. And so in the argument me and Alex build, it boils down to: the state is not necessary for development, but it is inevitable as an outcome. So, the task of political science, of political economy, is understanding if we are going to be stuck with one of them, how do we make it that we get the least terrible one? If it's not necessary, but it is inevitable, then how do we get to one that will maybe do some benefit, or at least, we can get the best kind possible? Well, that's where the liberal democratic answer gets into. [It] is [that] we need to find sets of constraints, rules, incentives that force the politicians to make it too costly for them to engage in predatory behaviour, in redistributive behaviour, and that they concentrate on what you could call productive behaviour. That would be like solving externalities. Like dealing with pollution or producing public goods stuff that markets have a harder time to produce. Getting into that category is the task of what liberal democracies are trying to do. That is a much harder proposition. Daron Acemoglu in his somewhat awful book, The Narrow Corridor, calls it a narrow corridor. (I don't like that book that much. I think it's a horrible piece of literature. He should have kept it at Why Nations Fail, we had everything we needed with Buchanan, and it was much better in the other version. He was a much worse version of that.) So, Parenthesis over on Daron Acemoglu, but his point is still relatively okay. There is a narrow corridor on which we evolve. That is a very narrow equilibrium that we want to stay on to, to avoid veering either into more territorial forms of government or into different types of authoritarian[ism], in a certain way. So the corridor for a liberal democracy is very, very, very, very narrow.Tobi; I like that description. The state is not necessary but inevitable. Whereas with the traditional state capacity crowd, the state is often assumed and never justified.Vincent;Actually, that's a bit unfair to them. The state capacity crowd, a lot of them are interested in state capacity as a story of the origins of states. That, I think, is a much-valued contribution. However, the issue of whether or not state capacity is linked to growth, I think this is where there's overstretching. My point is “no, there's very little reason to believe that state capacity is related to growth.” State capacity is more the direct or indirect result of growth in the past. So, either you are getting state capacity because you get conquered and you get imposed it by somebody else, or you get state capacity because you want to protect your wealth from other predators.Tobi; For the record, I'm not talking about your colleagues. There's this industrial policy school in development economics who are also big on state capacity, who think the state has to do this heavy lifting. They sort of assume the state and not justify it. But I won't let you go without asking you this final question. You recently published a paper - talking about the work of Thomas Piketty, the French economist - with Phillip Magness, I should say. What is your critique of his work? Because so far as I can tell, yes, I read the op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, [but] everybody else is sort of pretending that a critique of Piketty does not exist. And the political coalition around their research, along with [Emmanuel] Saez and [Gabriel] Zucman is moving rapidly apace, whether it is in taxation or other forms of agenda. So, what is your critique? I know there have been others in the past Matthew Rognlie, I'm not sure how to pronounce his last name.Vincent;Yeah. Our argument is actually very simple. And to be honest, I don't really care about the political conversation where, [for] the political people who are using Piketty's work, I ignore them. There may be a motivation for doing this work because it tells you the importance of his work, but the person I'm trying to talk to is Piketty himself. And the point we make in the paper is that he [not only] massively overestimates inequality in terms of levels, but he also misses times a lot of changes. In the article that me, Phil, another Phil, and John Moore published together in the Economic Journal, we find that there is a very different timeline of inequality in the United States. The most important part is that unlike Piketty and Saez, who can assign most of, and later Zucman… who can assign most of the changes in inequality to tax policy, we find that actually half the decline in inequality that happens between, say, 1917 and 1960, half of it is because of the Great Depression. And just as good economists, we should not be happy that, okay, the rich are growing poor faster than the poor, but the poor are also growing poor. That is not a decent outcome. So we're minimizing the role of fiscal policy and tax policy in doing inequality, but also the other changes that we find give a very different story of what matters in changing policy rather than being taxes, it has more to do with labour mobility within the United States. With capital mobility within the United States. So poor workers from the south, mostly black Americans, move to richer northern cities where wages are higher. Capital moves from the rich north to the poor south where workers are made more productive. So, the levelling has to do with a very standard force in economics - it's a Solow growth model - capital goes to where the returns are greatest, labour goes where the wages are greatest. Most of the convergence is explained by this, not by tax policy changes. So that's the critique we make of them. And there's a lot of other people who are joining in, Gerald Holtham, David Splinter, a lot of people are actually finding that their numbers don't make much sense and they're actually in violation of a lot of other facts of economic history, even though they're correct in the general idea that inequality fell; fell to 1960 and rose since the 1980. The problem is that all they got right is the shape, but they got wrong the timing, the levels, the extent of the changes. They got most of it wrong. They just got the general shape right. And that's no great feat.Tobi;Thank you so much for joining me.Vincent;It was a pleasure. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.ideasuntrapped.com/subscribe

Scott and Jeff discuss the effect of taxes on the economy with Professor Arthur Laffer,  for whom the Laffer Curve is named. The Laffer Curve shows the likely relationship between tax rates and tax revenue. We hear the famous story of drawing the curve on a napkin. We ask  Professor Laffer about the Laffer Curve, we get his opinion on the revenue maximizing tax rate, and his opinion on the effect of tax rates on revenue raised.

It would be easier at this point to start a list that names of everything that is not caused or tainted by racism, because it is becoming absurd. The latest from Nikole Hannah-Jones is that tipping is a legacy of slavery. No, she really said this, on Twitter last week: This brought a hearty guffaw from economic historian Phil Magness, who has more than once prompted Hannah-Jones to take down a silly tweet, as she did again in this instance. (Though not before attacking Magness, who clearly lives rent-free in her head.) But there’s more to this story than Hannah-Jones going off on a flight of malicious fancy. Phil wrote: It's not the first time that the 1619 Project has made bizarre claims that try to connect mundane aspects of everyday life to slavery. When investigating Hannah-Jones's theory of tipping however, I soon discovered that claims linking the practice to slavery have recently become a trendy talking point of the economic far-left. I caught up with Phil over the weekend in Dallas and decided to tape a quick interview with him about this fracas, but also to catch up on his work contesting the claims of income inequality that have made Thomas Piketty and his collaborators (Saez and Zucman) rich men, and some updates on the attacks on the Great Barrington Declaration that the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER, where Phil is a fellow) produced early in the COVID cycle.

Etter Russland invaderte Ukraina har det blitt innført kraftige økonomiske sanksjoner mot Putin-regimet. I denne episoden av Pengeland diskuterer vi de «økonomiske våpnene» rettet mot russiske oligarker, og da særlig deres verdier i Norge.Hvilke metoder brukes for å omgå sanksjoner? Og er Norge rustet i møte med forsøk på sanksjonsbrudd?Sammen med Julie Odden, er vi også innom tema som kryptovaluta, kunstmarkedet, register for reelle rettighetshavere (eierskapsregister) og naive nordmenn. Odden er jurist og daglig leder i Vega Integrity, som tilbyr kurs og rådgivning innen anti-hvitvasking, anti-terror og sanksjoner. Hun har tidligere vært sjef for anti-hvitvasking og finansiell kriminalitet i Sbanken, og jobber nå i KPMG.Episoden ble spilt inn onsdag 16. mars.Programledere: Julie Kristine Wood og Ingrid Hjertaker.Miks og musikk: Kristoffer Lislegaard.Foto: Vega Integrity / PREpisodenoter:DN-saken med Julie Odden: https://www.dn.no/marked/sanksjoner/russland/ukraina/jurist-julie-odden-veldig-sannsynlig-at-sanksjonerte-russere-na-prover-a-bruke-norge-til-a-sluse-penger-videre-til-andre-land/2-1-1175187Estimater av rike russeres verdier offshore, Piketty og Zucman: https://wid.world/document/soviets-oligarchs-inequality-property-russia-1905-2016/Les mer om register over rettighetshavere i vårt faktaark: https://taxjustice.no/artikkel/faktaark-reelle-rettighetshavere

durée : 00:24:32 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé - Gabriel Zucman, économiste, professeur d'économie à l'université de Berkeley, et Lucas Chancel, économiste, codirecteur du Laboratoire sur les inégalités mondiales, sont les invités du Grand entretien de France Inter pour leur rapport sur les inégalités mondiales.

durée : 02:08:15 - Le 7/9 - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé - Jean-Paul Rouve, acteur et co-scénariste du film Les Tuche 4, Gabriel Zucman, économiste, professeur d'économie à l'université de Berkeley, et Lucas Chancel, économiste, codirecteur du Laboratoire sur les inégalités mondiales, sont les invités du 7/9 de France Inter.

Alberto is Head of Global Credit strategies and Portfolio Manager of the Algebris Global Credit Opportunities fund, a global strategy investing in bonds, credit and equities. Prior to Algebris, Alberto was Managing Director and Head of Global Macro Credit Research at RBS (2011-2016). His team was top ranked in Institutional Investor's All-Europe Fixed Income survey for Investment Grade, High Yield Research and Fixed Income Strategy, for four years running. Previously, Alberto was a macro strategist at Goldman Sachs in New York (2007-2011) and previously he was at Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch in London (2004-2007), where he co-authored some of the early research on the credit derivatives market.In this podcast we discuss:  The challenge to neo-liberal capitalism  Biden's push for infrastructure and future trade policy China's paradox markets vs centralisation COVID accelerated history Corporate inequality  The effects of QE infinity  The barbell approach to investing in a low yield world  Favoured sectors  Europe vs US equity allocations  Why EM risks are high  Inflation persistence  Lessons learned as an investor Books that influenced Alberto: In Defence of Open Society (Soros), The Logic of Scientific Discovery (Popper), The Myth of Capitalism (Tepper), The Hidden Wealth of Nations (Zucman et al), Geopolitical Alpha (Papic), Homo Deus (Harari) and Brave New World (Huxley)                         

The two are genuinely confused while regurgitating talking points to provide content for our general internet listeners. Expect to hear analysis on some of the most pressing issues in tech... NTFs, the CIA starting bitcoin and the "Zucman" hatching from an egg.

durée : 00:58:31 - Entendez-vous l'éco ? - par : Tiphaine de Rocquigny, Marguerite Catton - Déficit creusé, dette explosée, politique fiscale détricotée... la présidence de Donald Trump aura laissé les États-Unis en proie à d'importants problèmes financiers. Un défi que Joe Biden va devoir relever lorsqu'il entrera à la Maison-Blanche. - réalisation : Anne Depelchin, Philippe Baudouin - invités : Gabriel Zucman Économiste, professeur associé à l'université de Berkeley et lauréat en 2018 le prix du Meilleur jeune Économiste attribué par le journal Le Monde et le Cercle des économistes.

durée : 01:58:29 - Le 7/9 - Les invités de la matinale : Robert Malley, Président de l’International Crisis Group, ancien membre de l’administration d’Obama Gabriel Zucman, économiste Gérard Araud, ancien ambassadeur de France aux Etats-Unis Sylvie Laurent, historienne et Roger Cohen, éditorialiste au New York Times

This week Beth and Wendy discuss Huang Yong, a Chinese serial killer, convicted of murdering 17 teenage boys (although he is suspected of 25 murders) between September 2001-03.   We begin with listener letters (5:19). We dive into the setting (11:06) the killers early life, and the timeline.      As usual we close out the show with some shout outs, crime news, and of course, some tips on how not to get murdered.     Thanks for listening! This is a weekly podcast and new episodes drop every Thursday, so until next time... look alive guys, it's crazy out there! Where to find us: Our Facebook page is Fruitloopspod and our discussion group is Fruitloopspod Discussion on Facebook; https://www.facebook.com/groups/fruitloopspod/ We are also on Twitter and Instagram @fruitloopspod Please send any questions or comments to fruitloopspod@gmail.com or leave us a voicemail at 602-935-6294.  We just might read your email or play your voicemail on the show! Want to Support the show? You can support the show by rating and reviewing Fruitloops on iTunes, or anywhere else that you get your podcasts from.  We would love it if you gave us 5 stars! You can make a donation on the Cash App https://cash.me/$fruitloopspod Or become a monthly Patron through our Podbean Patron page https://patron.podbean.com/fruitloopspod Articles/Websites   Wikipedia contributors. (04/26/2020). Huang Yong (murderer). Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 07/21/2020 from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huang_Yong_(murderer)&oldid=953283975 Lifedaily. (n.d.). Police Partly to Blame After Innocent Boys Fall Prey to Disturbed Serial Offender. Retrieved 07/22/2020 from https://www.lifedaily.com/story/police-blame-innocent-boys-serial-offender/ Taylor, John. (11/17/2003). Suspected serial killer in China arrested. ABC - PM.  Retrieved 07/22/2020 from http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2003/s991104.htm   CNN. (12/09/2003). Execution for China serial killer. Retrieved 07/21/2020 from http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/12/09/china.killer.reut/   Murderpedia. (n.d.). Huang Yong. Retrieved 07/21/2020 from https://murderpedia.org/male.Y/y/yong-huang.htm   Practice Source. (n.d.). China Has Its Serial Killers Too. Retrieved 07/21/2020 from https://practicesource.com/china-has-its-serial-killers-too/   R.A. Brewster. (12/15/2018). Human Monsters: Huang Yong, China’s Street Assassin. Retrieved 07/22/2020 from https://rabrewster.com/2018/12/15/human-monsters-huang-yong-chinas-street-assassin/   China Daily. (12/09/2003). Killer of 17 to be executed. Retrieved 07/23/2020 from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2003-12/09/content_288794.htm   History   Deason, Rachel. (05/16/2018). An Introduction to China’s Han People. Culture Trip. Retrieved 07/24/2020 from https://theculturetrip.com/asia/china/articles/an-introduction-to-chinas-han-people/   People’s Daily Online. (09/30/2006). China's most populous province legislates to curb gender imbalance. Retrieved 07/24/2020 from http://en.people.cn/200609/30/eng20060930_307662.html   Denyer, Simon; Gowen, Annie. (04/18/2018). Too Many Men. The Washington Post. Retrieved 07/24/2020 from https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/world/too-many-men/   Qin, Amy. (07/16/2019). A Prosperous China Says ‘Men Preferred,’ and Women Lose. New York Times. Retrieved 07/25/2020 from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/16/world/asia/china-women-discrimination.html   Encyclopedia Britannica. (n.d.). One Child Policy. Retrieved 07/26/2020 from https://www.britannica.com/topic/one-child-policy    Bloomberg News. (01/22/2020). China’s Two Child Policy. Retrieved 07/26/2020 from https://www.bloomberg.com/quicktake/china-s-two-child-policy   Piketty, Thomas; Yang, Li; Zucman, Gabriel. (04/01/2019). Income inequality is growing fast in China and making it look more like the US. LSE Business Review. Retrieved 07/26/2020 from https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2019/04/01/income-inequality-is-growing-fast-in-china-and-making-it-look-more-like-the-us/   Campbell, Charlie. (02/07/2019). China’s Aging Population Is a Major Threat to Its Future. TIME. Retrieved 07/26/2020 from https://time.com/5523805/china-aging-population-working-age/   How Not to Get Murdered   Safehome.org. (n.d.). Important Safety Rules To Teach Your Children. Retrieved 07/26/2020 from https://www.safehome.org/resources/child-safety/   Child Care Connections Vol 23 No 2. (2010). Teaching Young Children Habits for Personal Safety. Retrieved 07/26/2020 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510387.pdf   Shout Outs   California Lovehttps://www.npr.org/podcasts/889240274/california-love   Decoder Ring https://slate.com/podcasts/decoder-ring   Ad   Cases of Color Podcasthttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cases-of-color/id1484671903   Music   "Abyss" by Alasen: ●https://soundcloud.com/alasen●https://twitter.com/icemantrap ●https://instagram.com/icemanbass/●https://soundcloud.com/therealfrozenguy● Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 3.0 License   “Furious Freak” by Kevin MacLeod Link: https://incompetech.filmmusic.io/song/3791-furious-freak License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/   "Strange Times” and “VVS" by Yung Kartz https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Yung_Kartz Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License   "Start as You Mean to Go On" by Birch https://freemusicarchive.org/music/Daniel_Birch Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License   https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/   Connect with us on: Twitter @FruitLoopsPod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/fruitloopspod Facebook https://www.facebook.com/Fruitloopspod and https://www.facebook.com/groups/fruitloopspod  

durée : 00:34:33 - La Grande table idées - par : Olivia Gesbert - Il veut taxer les ultra-riches pour réduire les inégalités : Gabriel Zucman, l’économiste français qui parle à l'oreille des candidats démocrates Bernie Sanders et Elizabeth Warren, co-auteur de l'ouvrage "Le triomphe de l'injustice" (Seuil, février 2020), est notre invité. - réalisation : Eric Lancien, Gilles Blanchard - invités : Gabriel Zucman économiste

durée : 00:25:38 - L'invité de 8h20 : le grand entretien - par : Nicolas Demorand, Léa Salamé - L'économiste Gabriel Zucman est l'invité du Grand Entretien : il publie avec Emmanuel Saez "Le Triomphe de l’injustice. Richesse, évasion fiscale et démocratie" (éd. du Seuil).

Dr Stephen Bezruchka, MD, MPH, teaches us that healthcare as an industry doesn’t inevitably result in a healthy population. In fact, despite spending the most money of any country in the world on healthcare, we are #36 in lifespan, just behind Chile. Dr Bezruchka peels down the layers of what creates population health, namely, how the health of a population is not just the health of many individuals together and dives deeply into the roles consumerism (including marketing, advertising and social media), and social and political structures have played in constructing our health crisis which can be summed by noting that only two counties in the world currently suffer from shortening lifespans: the US & Syria. Listen in to understand how we got here, why we are still here, how to ask the right questions, and some considerations (like nurse-new family partnerships) for changing our trajectory. Notes: · Book: Triumph of Injustice by Saez & Zucman: https://www.elliottbaybook.com/book/9781324002727 · Hawaii Department of Health Report on the Social Determinants of Health: https://health.hawaii.gov/chronic-disease/files/2013/12/CD_BurdenReport_FINAL.pdf · Bill Moyers article on the intentional consolidation of wealth which has driven economic inequality from 2011: https://www.thenation.com/article/how-wall-street-occupied-america/ · Books: The Spirit Level and The Inner Level both by · UN health of nations report and the “Health Olympics”: https://inequality.org/research/health-olympics-medals/ · The United Kingdom strategy for addressing loneliness & social disconnection:article: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-launches-governments-first-loneliness-strategy; the actual report: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/750909/6.4882_DCMS_Loneliness_Strategy_web_Update.pdf · US Health in International Perspective: Shorter Lives, Poorer Health from January 2013: http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2013/US-Health-International-Perspective/USHealth_Intl_PerspectiveRB.pdf

durée : 00:04:12 - Le Zoom de la rédaction - Pour cette première semaine de la décennie 2020/30, France Inter présente des personnalités inspirantes, bien parties pour marquer les dix prochaines années dans différents domaines. Ce matin, l'économiste Gabriel Zucman. Il est l’économiste français en vogue de l’autre côté de l’Atlantique.

Wojciech Kopczuk is a Columbia economics professor who co-authored (in 2004) one of the leading estimates of wealth concentration in the literature, along with current progressive darling Emmanuel Saez. But ever since Thomas Piketty's bestselling book on wealth inequality, Saez has published research with Gabriel Zucman, showing dramatically different results. Kopczuk explains why economists can disagree on the basic facts of wealth concentration, and why there is controversy about Saez and Zucman's latest claim that billionaires pay a lower income tax rate than the working class. Mentioned in the Episode and Other Links of Interest: The YouTube video version (https://youtu.be/zpcQKpUzDT8) of this interview (highly recommended because of supporting graphs). Wojciech Kopczuk's homepage (http://www.columbia.edu/~wk2110/) at Columbia University. Kopczuk and Saez's 2004 article on wealth inequality (https://ntanet.org/NTJ/57/2/ntj-v57n02p445-87-top-wealth-shares-united.pdf?v=%CE%B1&r=9674166805272331) using estate tax data. Saez and Zucman's 2019 New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/11/opinion/sunday/wealth-income-tax-rate.html) article. Kopczuk's NBER paper contrasting the different measures (http://www.columbia.edu/~wk2110/bin/w20734.pdf) of wealth inequality. Help support (http://bobmurphyshow.com/contribute)  the Bob Murphy Show. The audio production for this episode was provided by  Podsworth Media (http://podsworth.com/) .

In our last 2019 episode, Aidan Regan talks to UC Berkeley's Gabriel Zucman, one of the leading experts in global tax competition (and evasion!) about tax havens, wealth inequality, and how to popularize research in economics across the U.S. and EU.More on Zucman's latest book: https://wwnorton.com/books/the-triumph-of-injusticeOn the New Political Economy of Europe: http://www.newpoliticaleconomyeurope.eu/Follow us on Twitter! https://twitter.com/UCD_DEI

Who benefits most from the tax system? What did the Trump tax cuts achieve? How do taxes affect inequality? What’s the relationship between taxes and democracy? Tax policy seems like it was designed by, of, and for the rich. But, as our guest today Gabriel Zucman points out, the U.S. tax code was once a vastly different beast. Zucman is an associate professor of economics at UC Berkeley, director of the Center on Wealth and Income Inequality, and economic advisor for two 2020 presidential campaigns. His latest book The Triumph of Injustice: How the Rich Dodge Taxes and How to Make them Pay, co-written with UC Berkeley economist Emmanuel Saez, documents the dramatic transformation of the U.S. tax code. In less than a lifetime, Americans exchanged the most progressive tax system in the world—a tax system with marginal income tax rates as high as 94 percent for the highest earners—for one where the 400 wealthiest members of society pay a lower tax rate than any other income group. Zucman’s work is clear. "Tax dodging” and the current iteration of the tax system—from income and payroll taxes to sales and property taxes—are not inevitable outcomes, but deliberate choices made by policymakers to privilege the interests of wealthy Americans and multinational corporations. If you believe this theory, it follows that we can and should make better choices in the future. For a preview of what these choices might look like and an outline of how we can design a progressive tax system for the twenty-first century, tune in to this conversation between Khalid Kaldi (MPP ’21) and Gabriel Zucman. If tax policy brings you joy, check out: Tax Policy Simulator 60 Profitable Fortune 500 Companies Avoided All Federal Income Taxes in 2018, Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (Report) Combating Inequality Conference (Video)

En Resumen de proyectOrinoco te propone una síntesis del libro que está revolucionando el debate sobre la desigualdad económica y la justicia social en los Estados Unidos: El Triunfo de la Injusticia, de los economistas Emmanuel Saez y Gabriel Zucman. Con El Triunfo de la Injusticia, los economistas Emmanuel Saez y Gabriel Zucman hacen una contribución fundamental al debate acerca de la importancia del sistema impositivo como motor de la justicia o, por el contrario, de la desigualdad social. Saez y Zucman, ambos profesores de economía en la Univeridad de California, Berkeley, hacen un estudio de la génesis y la evolución del sistema impositivo de los Estados Unidos, gracias al cual demuestran que la economía de ese país logró ser tanto más próspera cuanto que adoptó un sistema impositivo altamente redistributivo. Fue cuando invirtió masivamente en educación y salud, gracias a la contribución colectiva permitida por un sistema de impuestos progresivo, que la sociedad estadounidense alcanzó la abundancia y el bienestar. Partiendo de esta constatación, Saez y Zucman hacen una crítica frontal del giro neoliberal de los años 80 operado por Ronald Reagan, y de las políticas de reducción de impuestos de las cuales Donald Trump se ha hecho el paladín. Tal y como lo demuestran Emmanuel Saez y Gabriel Zucman, estas políticas no sólo fomentan la desigualdad social, sino que socavan las bases mismas de la prosperidad. Inspirados por el New Deal que otrora impulsó Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Saez y Zucman formulan una actualización de sus postulados con el fin de adaptarlos a la economía globalizada y digital del siglo 21. "Los impuestos son el precio a pagar por una sociedad civilizada". Tal es la máxima de Roosevelt que Saez y Zucman deciden enarbolar, y que retumba como una urgente invitación al cambio en nuestras sociedades latinoamericanas, plagadas por la desigualdad, azotadas por la violencia y enlodadas en el estancamiento económico. Para profundizar, descarga nuestro resumen escrito en: https://www.proyectorinoco.org/enresumen/El_Triunfo_de_la_Injusticia.pdf https://youtu.be/HcvSzOjGseg

Gabriel Zucman and his co-authors have become known for releasing these charts that go megaviral. In a new book, Zucman claims to have found that the 400 richest Americans now pay a lower tax rate than the bottom 50 percent of the country. This finding sparked outrage among the public, disagreement within the economics community, and debate among the democratic candidates for president last week. What do you need to know about Gabriel Zucman? And how does he envision fixing taxes in America? Guest: Jordan Weissmann is Slate’s senior business and economics correspondent. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Gabriel Zucman and his co-authors have become known for releasing these charts that go megaviral. In a new book, Zucman claims to have found that the 400 richest Americans now pay a lower tax rate than the bottom 50 percent of the country. This finding sparked outrage among the public, disagreement within the economics community, and debate among the democratic candidates for president last week. What do you need to know about Gabriel Zucman? And how does he envision fixing taxes in America? Guest: Jordan Weissmann is Slate’s senior business and economics correspondent. Slate Plus members get bonus segments and ad-free podcast feeds. Sign up now. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Bernie Sanders is the king of manipulated statistics. He always has been, and he's only getting better at it. You can check the article Bernie was pointing to for his latest claim here.   The article itself debunks its own title, of course, at the end of the article:  |||On the question of tax burden, Jason Furman, an economics professor at Harvard who chaired the White House Council of Economic Advisers under President Barack Obama, noted that Saez and Zucman did not include refundable tax credits, such as the earned-income tax credit (EITC), in their analysis. The credit, which is intended to encourage low-income families to work, “is part of the tax code,” Furman said.  A person who paid $1,000 in federal income taxes and then received a $1,500 credit would have a total federal tax burden of -$500, but Furman said that under Saez and Zucman’s analysis, that person would instead show a burden of $0. That result would make total tax burdens at the lower end of the income spectrum appear higher than they are. ||| On its face, it looks to be true. It even sounds true, worded in a perfect manner that would make the best tricksters envious. What's playing in its favor is that people want it to be true. It is however, very false.  Read the entire article at this link.   Visit www.goodmorningliberty.us for more great articles on politics, economics, and Libertarian ideology.  Visit www.BernieLies.com if you want to read specifically about the many lies told by one of America's greatest manipulators.  Get your own "Bernie Lies" T-Shirt on our Etsy store.  In Liberty, Charlie & Nate  P.S. We can do this. Keep forging on through the disheartening news, and hate-filled rhetoric. We're here to #MakeLibertyWin --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/goodmorningliberty/support

Between 1950 and 1980, the American working and middle class saw the single greatest rise in growth, prosperity, and strength that the world had ever seen. If you were born in this time frame, it was almost a guarantee that your quality of life would be better than the lives of your parents, especially economically speaking.But since 1980, that trend has been in reverse. For the first time in history, the vast majority of working and middle class households needed to be dual income to survive. Big businesses and the 1% grew continuously more politically influential, while everyone else quickly became left behind by the policies of politicians on both sides of the aisle.In 2008, the financial crisis dealt a crushing blow to working and middle class communities across America. Problems like wages not commensurate with rising student debt and cost of living has a new generation struggling like few before had to. In the 1960’s and 70’s, the idea of someone with a bachelor’s degree, or even Master’s degree, having to work 2-3 jobs just to make ends meet was unheard of. Today, it’s the norm. We have now gone from the 2 income household to the 2 income individual to survive. And with political corruption not showing any signs of slowing down, Americans are barreling towards a cliff they may never recover from.In this episode, Josh and Jon discuss how this happened in the first place, who’s affected, how, and why. And answer the ultimate question: can we turn this dangerous economic vehicle around in time? Or is the looming plunge off the economic cliff inevitable? ReferencesArndt, C. (2016, Nov 23). Infrastructure Spending Trends. American Forum. Retrieved from https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/infrastructure-spending-trends/Autor, D., Manning, A., & Smith, C. L. (2016). The Contribution of the Minimum Wage to US Wage Inequality over Three Decades: A Reassessment†. American Economic Journal, 8(1), 58-99.Bradford Tax Institute. (2019, Jan). History of Federal Income Tax Rates: 1913 – 2019. Retrieved from https://bradfordtaxinstitute.com/Free_Resources/Federal-Income-Tax-Rates.aspxCard, D. (2009, Jan). IMMIGRATION AND INEQUALITY. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES(NBER Working Paper No. 14683).Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2018, Dec 11). A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequalityChang, A. (2018, Apr 16). 100 years of tax brackets, in one chart. Retrieved from Vox: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/4/16/17215874/tax-brackets-100-years-chartFederal Reserve History. (1994, Sep). Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994. Retrieved from https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/riegle_neal_act_of_1994Gallup. (2019, Apr). Taxes. Retrieved from https://news.gallup.com/poll/1714/taxes.aspxOECD Data. (2015). Income Innequality. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Retrieved from https://data.oecd.org/inequality/income-inequality.htmSaez, E., & Zucman, G. (2014, Oct). WEALTH INEQUALITY IN THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1913:EVIDENCE FROM CAPITALIZED INCOME TAX DATA. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES. Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w20625.pdfTax Policy Center. (2018, Nov). Historical Income Distribution for All Households. Retrieved from https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/statistics/historical-income-distribution-all-householdsThe Economist. (2014, Nov 6). Forget the 1%. Retrieved from www.econmist.com: https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2014/11/06/forget-the-1The Washington Post. (2019, Feb 22). YouTube. Retrieved from Do the Waltons earn more in a minute than Walmart workers do in a year?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evTQLvTMSPcWestern, B., & Rosenfeld, J. (2011). Unions, Norms, and the Rise in U.S. Wage Inequality. American Sociological Review, 76(513).Yglesias, M. (2015, May 12). Vox. Retrieved from Everything you need to know about income inequality: https://www.vox.com/2014/5/7/18076944/income-inequality

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rise within the Democratic Party has been unprecedented. A recent poll published by NBC news shows that 75% of Democratic or Democrat leaning voters would vote for her in a presidential campaign. This in spite of the fact that, at age 29, AOC isn't eligible to run until she is 35. What's behind her surge in public support? Her Democratic Socialist platform promises everything under the sun to everyone and proposes to pay for it by taxing the rich and redistributing income. Again this is promise of a kinder and gentler face of Socialism today; the old school dictators are genocide are gone from today's Socialist movement or so we are told. That's simply not the case as a January 22, 2019 New York Times editorial shows. The piece written by Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, both economics professors at UC Berkely, demonstrate that Socialists still embrace the Dark Side of Socialism, which begs the question can the Darth Vader's who were responsible for genocide, be far behind? Saez and Zucman openly state that the true value of Ocasio-Cortez's plan is not simply that it soaks the rich (their words), but that it controls free markets, which restricts the accumulation of unjust wealth and the exploitation of marginalized people. This exploitation and injustice tears apart at fabric of society, and threatens the existence of democracy. Their definition of democracy is one in the same with that of Valdimir Lenin, the original Darth Vader of socialism who's Russian Revolution initiated the use of concentration camps to target those who practiced exploitation and opposed the Socialist State. As a result 66 million people died in the Soviet Union. There is a battle two different concepts of democracy here in America, a Socialist form that seek to control free markets and conquer a perceived exploitation vs one that believes individuals have the right to self determination within free markets and free society. In the past the Darth Vaders of Socialism murdered over 100 million people in defense of Socialist Democracy. Only history will tell us if the Darth Vaders will rise once again against those who oppose socialism.

Den franske økonomen Gabriel Zucman forklarer hvordan de superrike snyter på skatten. Hva betyr det å være menneske i verden i dag? Hvordan påvirker store samfunnsendringer som økonomisk kollaps, etniske konflikter, religiøs kontroll eller politiske omveltninger det enkelte liv? Noen av verdens fremste sakprosaforfattere kommer til Litteraturhuset for å snakke om det lille mennesket i den store verden. De aller rikeste i Norge jukser mest. I boka Skjult rikdom regner den franske økonomen Gabriel Zucman ut hvor mye verdens superrike snyter på skatten. Han regner også ut hva dette betyr for alle oss andre, de 99,9 prosentene som ikke er superrike. Zucman har fått oppmerksomhet over hele verden, ikke minst fordi han forklarer skattesystemet og skatteparadisene slik at alle som ikke lurer unna penger også kan forstå hvordan det gjøres. Hvordan klarer en ung forsker å komme fram til disse tallene når skattemyndighetene ikke gjør det? Zucman kommer til Norge på invitasjon fra Verden i Bergen, og møter professor i økonomi og korrupsjonsforsker ved Norges Handelshøyskole, Tina Søreide, til samtale.

Den franske økonomen Gabriel Zucman forklarer hvordan de superrike snyter på skatten. [Samtale på engelsk] Hva betyr det å være menneske i verden i dag? Hvordan påvirker store samfunnsendringer som økonomisk kollaps, etniske konflikter, religiøs kontroll eller politiske omveltninger det enkelte liv? Noen av verdens fremste sakprosaforfattere kommer til Litteraturhuset for å snakke om det lille mennesket i den store verden. De aller rikeste i Norge jukser mest. I boka Skjult rikdom regner den franske økonomen Gabriel Zucman ut hvor mye verdens superrike snyter på skatten. Han regner også ut hva dette betyr for alle oss andre, de 99,9 prosentene som ikke er superrike. Zucman har fått oppmerksomhet over hele verden, ikke minst fordi han forklarer skattesystemet og skatteparadisene slik at alle som ikke lurer unna penger også kan forstå hvordan det gjøres. Hvordan klarer en ung forsker å komme fram til disse tallene når skattemyndighetene ikke gjør det? Zucman kommer til Norge på invitasjon fra Verden i Bergen, og møter professor i økonomi og korrupsjonsforsker ved Norges Handelshøyskole, Tina Søreide, til samtale. Samtaleserien Verden i Bergen er støttet av Fritt Ord.

Gabriel Zucman of the University of California, Berkeley talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about his research on inequality and the distribution of income in the United States over the last 35 years. Zucman finds that there has been no change in income for the bottom half of the income distribution over this time period with large gains going to the top 1%. The conversation explores the robustness of this result to various assumptions and possible explanations for the findings.

The economist Gabriel Zucman is the inventor of an ingenious way to estimate the amount of wealth hidden in the offshore banking system. In theory, if you add up the assets and liabilities reported by every global financial centre, the books should balance. But they don’t. Each individual centre tends to report more liabilities than assets. Zucman crunched the numbers and found that, globally, total liabilities were eight percent higher than total assets. That suggests at least eight percent of the world’s wealth is illegally unreported. Other methods have come up with even higher estimates. As Tim Harford explains, that makes the tax haven a very significant feature of the modern economy. Editors: Richard Knight and Richard Vadon Producer: Ben Crighton (Image: Huts along tropical beach, Credit: DonLand/Shutterstock)