Javier García-Bernardo
Check this: https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/
2020
2021
2020
2021
~g
~r
rental income
dividends
capital gains
interest
growth rate
rate of return of capital
Dawid
Javier
Source data: 2016 Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finances
Source: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-assets-make-wealth/
Source: World Inequality Database
Wealthy people have access to better investments and lower taxation
Option 1: Progressive tax on personal income
However... it does not affect r,
often the major driver
of inequality
However... we have been
reducing the progressiveness
of personal income tax
Option 2: Tax returns of capital to reduce r
Tax at the individual level:
- Tax dividend, interest and rental income
- Tax capital gains
Tax at corporate level:
- Tax corporate income
However...
- we have been reducing these taxes
Option 3: Tax wealth directly
Corporations: Move financial assets to OFCs (semi-legal)
+5€ (coffee)
-1€ (brand)
-4€ (costs)
Starbucks Spain
Starbucks NL
EBT: 0€
EBT: 1€
+1€ (brand)
+5€ (coffee)
-4€ (costs)
Cafe Pepe
EBT: 1€
Tax: 0€
Profit: 0€
Tax: 0.07€
Profit: 0.93€
Tax: 0.25€
Profit: 0.75€
Location of profits
Location of employees
the Netherlands, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Ireland and Singapore
Individuals create companies offshore and:
- Invest from there to avoid capital gains, dividend, interest or rent taxes until the profits are repatriated (mostly legal)
- Hide assets there (mostly illegal)
- Avoid inheritance tax by hiring a life insurance inside a trust
... lost of other dubious tax schemes involving shell companies offshore
OFCs “process” around $6 000 000 000 000 yearly.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/06/opinion/income-tax-rate-wealthy.html
Solution: Network science!
Step 1: Construct global ownership chains, representing money flows
- Start from each company, find the owners recursively
- Weight the chain by the revenue of the first chain
- Take the ownership into consideration
We look at which countries are used disproportionately in transnational ownership chains.
Step 2: Sink OFC
Countries that attract and retain capital. They are situated disproportionately at the end of the chains (where the owners are)
Step 3: Conduit OFC
Countries that are attractive intermediate destinations because their numerous tax treaties, low or zero withholding taxes, strong legal systems and good reputations for enabling the quiet transfer of capital without taxation. In the middle of ownership chains.
Adding the ownership chains entering and country, subtracting the ones leaving the country
Summing the ownership chains going from a sink, into the country analyzed, and out to a third country
Step 1:
weighted by the revenue of Franziskaner
|Source - Sink|
Measures total importance
Green: Source>Sink
Yellow: Sink>Source
|Source - Sink|/GDP
Measures relative importance
High relative and total importance
High total importance, low relative importance
Low total importance, high relative importance
15 companies per capita
Value(Sink→Country→Third country)/GDP
Value(Third country→Country→Sink)/GDP
Five countries channel 47% of corporate offshore investment from tax havens:
Netherlands (23%), the UK (14%), Switzerland (6%), Singapore (2%) and Ireland (1%).
Historical reasons:
During the 80s there was a push towards attracting corporations in the Netherlands.
The Netherlands is extremely successful at attracting holding companies (assets ~8 times GDP), mainly to avoid taxes.
Tax revenue collected:
- 8 billion / year
Tax revenue lost by other countries:
- 36 billion / year
Employment:
- 3000 of business service professionals
- Some other thousands by headquarters and shared service centers
javier.garcia.bernardo@gmail.com