It’s impossible to reform our economic system without altering the allocation of political power that prevents such reform
What we must do
They hypothesized that even though the voices of individual Americans counted for little, most people belonged to a variety of interest groups and membership organizations — clubs, associations, political parties, and trade unions. “Interest-group pluralism,” as they called it, was responsive to the needs and aspirations of most citizens
Small retailers were protected against retail chains through state “fair trade” laws requiring wholesalers to charge all retailers the same price and preventing chains from undercutting prices. At the same time, the retail chains were allowed to combine into national organizations to counter the significant market power of large manufacturers.Small investors gained protection under the Securities and Exchange Acts against the power of big investors and top corporate executives.Small banks were protected against Wall Street by regulations that barred interstate banking and separated commercial from investment banking
Because wages stagnated, most people had to devote more time to work in order to makes ends meet. As sociologist Robert Putnam has documented, Americans stopped being a nation of “joiners.” By the 1980s, the expansive mosaic of local organizations that had given meaning to American pluralism was being replaced by national advocacy organizations headquartered in Washington.“Membership” no longer meant activism at the local and state levels. It meant sending money in response to mass solicitations
Many small retailers went under due to repeals of state “fair trade” laws and court decisions finding that resale price maintenance violated antitrust laws. Large chains that spearheaded such moves argued that consumers would get better deals as a result. But the moves also opened the way to giant big-box retailers, such as Walmart, that siphoned away so much business from the Main Streets of America that many became ghost towns.These changes also led to the closings of millions of locally owned businesses that had provided communities with diverse products and services, some produced locally or regionally, and many jobs
In the 2012 elections, the Koch brothers’ political network alone spent more than double on politics than the 10 largest labor unions put together. Corporations spent $56 on lobbying for every $1 spent by labor unions
The loss of American workers’ collective economic power compounded their loss of political power, which in turn accelerated their loss of economic power
Half of all daily newspapers in the U.S. are now controlled by financial firms
The deregulation of finance — demanded by Wall Street — allowed the Street’s biggest banks to become far bigger, taking over markets that state and local banks had previously served and thereby cutting off financing for many small local and regional enterprises
In the 1990s, Democrats voted against Bill Clinton’s health care plan because their corporate sponsors opposed it
In his first two years in office, Clinton pushed for two items of central importance to big business. He got Congress to enact the North American Free Trade Agreement, followed by the establishment of the World Trade Organization. And he committed to reducing the federal budget deficit.Clinton and his allies in Congress also deregulated Wall Street. In 1993, Democrats supported the Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, which ended restrictions on interstate banking. In 1999, Clinton pushed for repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that had separated commercial from investment banking. In 2000, he supported the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which prevented the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from regulating most over-the-counter derivative contracts, including credit default swaps
Barack Obama presided over one of the most pro-business administrations in American history. He pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into Wall Street in order to save the Street (and the U.S. economy) from imploding after the crash of 2008
The career paths of Democratic officials in the Clinton and Obama administrations confirmed their close ties to business and Wall Street
The major fault line in American politics has shifted from Democrats versus Republicans to anti-establishment versus establishment.The strongest and most powerful force in American politics is a rejection of the status quo, a repudiation of politics as usual, and a deep and profound distrust of elites — including the current power structure of America
Trump is a fake populist, of course. Many big corporations and wealthy individuals are solidly behind him. After they bankrolled his 2016 election, he rewarded them with a giant tax cut
Trump’s 2024 campaign has nothing to do with conservative orthodoxy emphasizing small government. To the contrary, Trump is proposing to centralize government power under his authority and extend it over a range of issues now outside the scope of federal control
But Biden has not taken direct aim at the growing political power of giant corporations, Wall Street, and the ultra-wealthy. He has not explained how they have abused their wealth and power to alter the economy to their advantage — and the disadvantage of most other Americans... He has not fought to get big money out of politics.Yet polls show strong public support for getting big money out of politics. For cutting the biggest Wall Street banks down to a size where they are no longer too big to fail. For resurrecting the Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated commercial and investment banking until its repeal in 1999
a strong coalition — trade unions, working men and women, local political organizations, small businesses, young people, and others. In other words, a new countervailing power
movement... to unite the poor, working and middle class, people of color and white people — everyone who has barely had a raise in 30 years and who now feels cynical, powerless, and disenfranchised
starting in July 2021, 36 million American families began receiving pandemic payments of up to $3,000 per child ($3,600 for each child under six).The result? Child poverty dropped by at least a third, and the typical family gained some breathing space.This hugely successful experiment ended abruptly in December 2021 when Senator Joe Manchin joined 50 Republican senators in rejecting President Biden’s Build Back Better Act, which would have continued it.They cited concerns over the experiment’s cost — an estimated $100 billion per year, or $1.6 trillion over 10 years. But that’s less than big corporations and the rich will have saved on taxes from the Trump Republican tax cut of 2018. Repeal it, and there would be enough money. The cost is also less than the increase in the wealth of America’s 745 billionaires during the pandemic. Why not a wealth tax?The experiment died because, put simply, the oligarchy didn’t want to pay for it
Capitalism is consistent with democracy when democracy is in the driver’s seat — reducing the inequalities, insecurities, joblessness, and poverty that accompany unbridled profit-seeking
OECD does collect country by country financial information. But it’s only for the very largest multinationals. Their tax truths are hidden, because it’s published in an aggregated and anonymous way, and details are only accessible to tax authorities who jump through many, many hoops. Read: most African nations do not have access.Australia shook the corporate world to its core by deciding to introduce public country by country reporting legislation: one in five companies around the globe would have had their tax truths exposed, enabling tax authorities to pore over those PDFs that had been denied to them. But the Tax Justice Network says, “the OECD may have become an outright proponent of opacity and blocker of progress, lobbying Australia to keep multinational corporations’ profit shifting behaviour out of the public eye.” The Financial Times has confirmed the OECD pressured Australia to water down rules.
You’d be forgiven if you clicked on the corporate governance structure of a multinational company and mistook the download plans for a world tour itinerary. You may find yourself starting in London on your way to Lilongwe, with layovers in Amsterdam, Road Town and Dubai, wondering how much of Virunga National Park would need saving […]
The Australian government has delayed legislation1 which would have delivered the biggest breakthrough to date in transparency on the taxes of multinational corporations. Shockingly, reports suggest that lobbying against the legislation by multinational corporations and their professional enablers may have been bolstered by the OECD itself – the organisation which claims to set international tax […]
The Financial Times has confirmed that the OECD – the international tax rulemaker – heavily lobbied to stop Australia from passing legislation that would have delivered the biggest transparency breakthrough to date on the taxes of multinational corporations.1 The OECD’s deliberate attempt to block progress on tackling tax havens will have significant implications for the […]
After two weeks of silence, the OECD has addressed1 its role in delaying breakthrough tax transparency legislation in Australia, which was confirmed this weekend in frontpage news by the Financial Times.2 Reports of the OECD heavily lobbying against the legislation were first brought to light by CICTAR and the Tax Justice Network.3 A statement was […]
Half a year later, EU member states are split in their response to the European Court of Justice’s decision to suspend the clause that guaranteed public access to beneficial ownership registers in the EU. Our new analysis shows that the split in responses mirror countries positions on our Financial Secrecy Index, which ranks countries on how complicit they are in helping individuals to hide their finances from the rule of law.
The holy grail for tax administrations is arguably achieving a positive
The minority of countries who voted against yesterday’s resolution for more inclusive decision-making at the UN represent 15 per cent of the global population. Those who voted for the resolution represent 80 per cent..."These numbers cut to the heart of what happened at the UN vote. The world united to fight global tax abuse together, and the small circle of countries fuelling that tax abuse tried and failed to stop them
The minority of countries who voted against plans adopted at the UN yesterday for historic global tax reforms are responsible for three-quarters of all countries’ losses to tax havens, the Tax Justice Network reports. These countries – consisting mostly of OECD member countries who almost exclusively decided global tax rules for the rest of the […]
Countries at the UN have adopted by a landslide majority today a resolution to begin the process of establishing a framework convention on tax and completely change how global tax rules are decided.1 The framework convention can eventually move decision-making on global tax rules from the OECD – a small club of rich countries where […]
Originally, the OECD’s idea of the new minimum tax was to make the international corporate tax system a little fairer. Now, Switzerland is among the front-runners to implement the new GLoBE rules (Global Anti Base Erosion Model Rules). Why is an infamous corporate tax haven so keen to introduce new international rules supposed to stop […]
Renowned economists Joseph Stiglitz, Jayati Ghosh, Gabriel Zucman and other commissioners of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT) have called out the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for abusing its role in debt renegotiations to force countries to adopt OECD tax rules – rules that the IMF’s own research shows would […]
New analysis identifies alternatives that raise greater revenues and retain sovereignty Tax specialists from the BEPS Monitoring Group, a network of leading experts from around the world who track and evaluate the process begun in 2013 by the OECD to reform global tax rules, have published a new report on the OECD’s long-delayed package of […]
Nine policies to reprogramme our tax systems to work for everyone, not just the superrich.
"Isn't tax avoidance legal?""Has the OECD really failed - it's agreed a global minimum tax rate?""Can the UN succeed where the OECD hasn't?"These are...
Full damage done by UK dependencies Jersey, Gibraltar and Guernsey now shown We are issuing a correction to our recent State of Tax Justice 2023 report in light of a coding bug spotted by our team that had resulted in some data on 10 smaller jurisdictions being left out of the report’s total tally of […]
Dan Neidle, a tax lawyer who recently retired from the multinational law firm Clifford Chance, and Richard Murphy, a professor of accounting practice at Sheffield University who resigned as a member of the Tax Justice Network in 2007 and as Tax Justice Network company secretary in 2009, have republished their criticisms of the Tax Justice […]
CORRECTION – 23 August 2023: Due to a coding error, some data on 10 small jurisdictions was left out of the report’s tally on tax losses arising from global tax abuse. These jurisdictions are Anguilla, Cook Islands, French Guiana, Gibraltar, Guadeloupe, Guernsey, Jersey, Saint Martin, Taiwan, Wallis and Fortuna. Adding the missing data to the report’s […]
Of the $472 billion lost a year, $301 billion is lost to cross-border corporate #taxabuse by multinational corporations and $171 billion is lost to...
Lower income countries continue to be hit harder by global #taxabuse. Their tax losses ($46 billion) are equivalent to more than half (56%) of their...
Sir, At the Tax Justice Network, we believe our tax and financial systems are our most powerful tools for creating a just society that gives equal weight to the needs of everyone. As we celebrate our twentieth anniversary this year, we note the change of era reflected by Your Majesty’s coronation. We hope this can […]
A financial activities tax (FAT) – a tax on the sum of bank profits and bankers’ remuneration packages with the proceeds going into general government revenues.
A currency transaction tax is a tax placed on the use of currency for various types of transactions. The tax is associated with the financial sector and is a type of financial transaction tax, as opposed to a consumption tax paid by consumers, though the tax may be passed on by the financial institution to the customer. Currency transaction taxes...
The Robin Hood tax is a package of financial transaction taxes (FTT) proposed by a campaigning group of civil society non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Campaigners have suggested the tax could be implemented globally, regionally, or unilaterally by individual nations. Conceptually similar to the Tobin tax (which was proposed for foreign...
A Tobin tax was originally defined as a tax on all spot conversions of one currency into another. It was suggested by James Tobin, an economist who won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Tobin's tax was originally intended to penalize short-term financial round-trip excursions into another currency. By the late 1990s, the term Tobin...
A financial transaction tax (FTT) is a levy on a specific type of financial transaction for a particular purpose. The tax has been most commonly associated with the financial sector for transactions involving intangible property rather than real property. It is not usually considered to include consumption taxes paid by consumers.[1] A transaction...
在一九九〇至二〇一〇年這二十年間……
這期間也正是《促進產業升級條例》的施行期間
若想了解台灣產業政策的功與過，這段歷史值得好好研究
《促進產業升級條例》獎勵投資多於獎勵升級……廢除五年免稅…是《產升條例》[《促進產業升級條例》的簡稱] 的重要特色……但一九九五年立法院修法，把五年免稅的優惠還給重要科技事業和重大投資事業，但須在股東投資抵減和五年免稅中擇一適用。二○○○年《產升條例》再修法並延長十年，將五年免稅的優惠限用於「新興重要策略性產業」。五年免稅與股東投資抵減仍是擇一適用，但只留下法人股東的抵減優惠，個人股東的抵減在修法後五年內逐步歸零。立法諸公顯然受到來自產業界的壓力，才把「五年免稅」的優惠從資源回收桶裡找回來。在《獎勵投資條例》實施的後期，五年免稅已經成為最受歡迎、應用最廣泛、稅損最大的獎勵項目，很難斷奶。此外，《產升條例》生效以後，科學園區的廠商根據《科學園區管理條例》，仍繼續享受五年免稅的優惠，使園區內外的相同產業有不平等的租稅待遇（二○○○年《產升條例》修法時才將園區的租稅優惠併入，消除區內外的差異）。五年免稅的恢復，賦予政府繼續挑選贏家的力量，而且因為範圍較《獎勵投資條例》時代縮小，篩選力道更強。《獎勵投資條例》時代，只要合乎「生產事業獎勵類目及標準」即可享受五年免稅，產業範圍很廣，現在只剩下「新興重要策略性產業」。從這個角度看，《產升條例》的成敗更適合用來檢驗產業政策的功過。《產升條例》實施初期十年的所謂「重大投資事業」，標準不甚明朗，由工業局逐案審查，不過基本上獎勵對象是投資金額龐大的一些個案，例如六輕的投資案等……從事後結果看，《產升條例》的租稅獎勵大部分用於獎勵資本支出，而非功能別的項目。在所有功能別的獎勵項目中，只有自動化投資的抵減是最受歡迎的優惠，其他項目的使用率甚低，尤其是人才培訓和國際品牌兩項，申請適用者寥寥可數。人才培訓旨在提高勞動生產力，國際品牌旨在改變經營模式，立意良善，但廠商顯然缺乏呼應政策的誘因，充分證明「徒法不足以自行」。相對的，「重大投資事業」和「重要科技事業」的租稅減免金額則自一九九五年修法後逐步擴大，穩定成長。自動化和汙染防治設備的投資抵減其實都只是鼓勵投資，並不是鼓勵升級。企業除了在人才培訓、建立國際品牌這些改變企業體質的投資上躑躅不前，即使在改變生產方法的投資方面，也偏好設備投資勝於研發投資。投資於新設備和研發是企業提升競爭力的兩大路徑，前者擴大規模，後者則促成創新；台灣企業明顯偏好前者。這段期間台灣發展的主力產業，如半導體或面板，具有技術變遷快、資本折舊快的特性，不斷投資新設備，生產力就會提升，而且投資新設備在五年免稅的優惠下，投資成本可以大幅下降。換言之，租稅優惠的結果強化企業風險趨避的心態，而非鼓勵冒險。以一九九○年代投資最旺盛的半導體為例，如果資本設備在五年內折舊完畢，則「五年免稅」的優惠可使資本報酬完全免稅。在半導體產業有著名的摩爾定律（Moore's Law），指半導體的製程技術在十八個月內即縮減一半的線徑；換言之，十八個月即有新生產設備的出現。由於資本設備的更新速度快，「五年免稅」和投資抵減的優惠甚至可使半導體企業的實質稅負變成負數。半導體業是資本密集的產業，資本的成本下降，當然使產業的總體成本下降，低成本是台灣半導體業競爭的核心優勢。取得租稅獎勵的行政成本不同，也有鼓勵投資甚於研發的傾向。資本支出較容易證明和辨識，研發支出則比較不容易認定。「重大投資事業」和「重要科技事業」的投資抵減必須在投資前取得政府獎勵的許可；研發投資的獎勵則採事後審查的方式。事前許可雖然麻煩，但減少獎勵的不確定性；事後審查則增加不確定性。而且負責事前許可的是工業局，重視產業發展；負責事後審查的是財政部，重視的是稅收減少。稅務行政也造成投資優惠較研發優惠更受歡迎的局面。總的來說，《產升條例》雖明言要獎勵產業升級，結果還是獎勵投資多於升級。在幾個功能性的獎勵項目中，只有研發支出獎勵有較明顯的效果，研發支出占GDP的比例由一九九○年的一‧六六%增加到二○○○年的二‧○五%，確實有增加，但仍不如預期。我們不得不承認《產升條例》的功能別獎勵並未真正對企業的特定活動產生太大的鼓勵效果，反而對資本形成有較大的幫助。這和租稅獎勵的設計、稅務行政以及「五年免稅」的復活有關係，也受產業發展的「路徑依循」限制。產業的發展畢竟不是隔空抓藥，政策的力道再強，也得看市場是否有支撐條件。台灣一九九○年產業發展最大的市場引力，就是自一九八六年以後風起雲湧的海外投資所衍生的跨國需求。台商在海外投資所建立的海外生產基地，利用國外廉價的勞動力，大幅度擴大生產規模，衍生對國內上游原物料及零組件的巨大需求，轉而誘發國內上游產業的擴大投資。這些上游產業基本上是資本密集的產業，適合在台灣生產，而《產升條例》對投資的獎勵如火上加油，產生很好的效果，加速產業垂直的轉換；下游萎縮，上游膨脹。在一九八六至一九九○年間台灣對外投資有三個主力產業：紡織成衣、化學製品（含塑膠）、電子產品；而它們的上游產業紡織纖維、化學材料、電子零件（包括半導體）也正是一九九○年代國內大投資潮的主角。這是一種背向整合（backward integration)的發展模式，透過下游的擴張，帶動上游的成長，而且上下游的垂直連結跨越了國境。三個產業中，電子零件業積極投資最為突出。如果我們以工商普查的統計資料檢視一九九一至二○○一年間產業固定資本總量[stock]的變化，可以計算出這十年間，台灣製造業整體的資本存量增加一二三‧二%，各行業之中則以電子零件業的資本存量增加一○○九%最高；亦即十年間成長十倍，這主要是拜半導體業的大量投資之賜。
規模的迷思——企業變大，但沒有變強……台商整合的海外資源，是市場上最容易取得的初級資源，例如土地和勞動力，很少涉及策略性資源，例如高階人才或技術資源。如果像先進國家的跨國公司一樣，要整合跨國的策略性資源，規模效益應該更顯著。台灣企業的規模化除跨國生產的需求外，也受國內資本市場發展的影響。一九九○年以後，台灣的股票市場逐漸成熟，有利於經營良好的企業規模擴張。政府對股票投資產生的資本利得一直給予免稅的優惠，只有股息收入要併入其他個人收入，課徵綜合所得稅。因此上市公司如果只配股，不配息，將盈餘轉投資，使公司不斷擴大規模，對股東來說，既賺到股價差，又不用繳稅；公司則利用《產升條例》的優惠待遇，透過新投資取得五年免稅或投資抵減的優惠。對於具有成長性的企業來說，股市可以提供無成本的資金，公司只要印股票就可以換鈔票，投資於產能的擴充。換言之，只要投資人認為有成長前景的產業，企業規模自然有擴大的趨勢，一直到投資人認為產業已走到成熟階段，成長不再可期為止。企業若欲展示成長力道，以說服投資人，營收就要不斷擴大。除了自力投資擴產外，併購其他企業也有相同的效果，而併購也使規模變大。台灣特有的資本利得免稅和產業稅制，對資本密集型產業的企業規模壯大有重大影響。例如半導體業的台積電雖然開辦後不久每年都有盈餘，但自一九九四年上市以來都以配股為主，配息為輔，直到二○○五年以後股利政策才翻轉。台積電迄今為止甚少進行對外投資，因此其生產規模的擴大無法以跨國生產的需求來解釋，台灣資本市場的規則與產業稅制才是其生產規模達到世界頂峰的重要推手。……台灣廠商進行跨國生產的本質，僅止於取得一般性的生產資源，例如土地或勞力，達到提高生產效率的目的，卻無法利用海外的策略性資源進行創新……為什麼台灣的廠商雖然規模變大了，市場集中度也變高了，卻未取得熊彼得所言的創新優勢呢？這主要有兩個原因，一是缺乏超額利潤，一是缺乏實現創新價值的能力。缺乏超額利潤，就無法長期投入研發；雖然規模大，但是毛利低，沒有能力承擔長期研發的風險。另一方面，因其在生產鏈上地位的關係，即使有創新，也無法獨力實現創新的價值，獲得創新的報酬。從事代工生產的廠商即使有創新，創新所生的價值必須由客戶加持才能實現，客戶由創新得到的利益，永遠比代工廠更高
執行期間以短期計畫居多，很少有長期計畫，以工研院執行的「科專」為例，最長是五年。這種短期計畫只能針對產業迫在眉睫的需求進行研究，研究目標都是世界上已經存在並且商品化的技術，無法進行前瞻性的研究。經濟部對執行計畫的考核也以立即性的指標為主，例如技術轉移的收益，甚少長期的指標，例如產業的產值；因此計畫傾向於解決產業眼前面臨的技術難題，鮮少開創性的研究
立法院後來要求工研院來自政府的預算必須與來自民間的經費相等，而民間經費只會來自大型企業，因此工研院和大型企業的互利關係變成了法定義務，工研院服務中小企業的空間縮小，幾乎成了大型企業的輔佐研究機構
在市場競爭壓力下，企業研發支出日增，但大部分研發投資於生產技術的改良，創新性不高，更無破壞性創新。只重技術改良，沒有產品創新，使二○○○年以後的二十年間，台灣產業升級遭遇巨大的瓶頸
《產升條例》下的各種租稅優惠，加上自一九九六年以來實施的「兩稅合一」，使稅基不斷流失，政府赤字不斷擴大，導致二○○五年朝野合力通過《所得基本稅額條例》，建立所謂「最低稅負制」，將企業享受的各種優惠歸零，重新計算一個無優惠下的「基本稅額」，稅率介於一二％至一五％，企業最終的稅負不得低於此一水準。「最低稅負制」為特定產業的租稅優惠設下天花板，相對於一般企業營利事業所得稅二五%雖然仍落差很大，不過總算拉近距離，消除某些資本密集產業長期免納稅的奇特現象。
配合租稅優惠的廢除，另外修法把營利事業所得稅由二五％降為一七％，以爭取企業界的支持。《產業創新條例》確實是我國產業稅法的里程碑，終於擺脫「五年免稅」的長期糾纏，工業局也不必再編制「十大新興策略性工業」的清單
除降低營所稅外，也降低遺產贈與稅、鼓勵海外資金回流、鼓勵海外台商回台股票上市……在劉兆玄院長任內曾提出「六大新興產業」的構想，企圖在當時獨大的資訊半導體產業基礎上，延伸並分散產業的發展。劉內閣列舉的「六大新興產業」包括生物科技、觀光旅遊、綠色能源、醫療照護、精緻農業、文化創意產業，都不是製造業，可見目的是利用資訊技術的基礎，發展相對落後的服務業和農業。「六大新興產業」構想提出當時，台灣產業的現狀是半導體一柱擎天，但平均薪資長年不成長，造成民怨，而且超過六成的民間就業在服務業部門，而服務業正是低薪工作人口密集的地方，因此有必要提升服務業的生產力。這個構想不論是目標還是政策工具，都與傳統產業政策的思維不同，例如其中的生物科技產業計畫以成立大基金的方式推動，以突破生技產業一直欠缺的關鍵規模(critical mass)。可惜隨著劉內閣下台，「六大新興產業」計畫就被束之高閣。半導體產業繼續獨走
蔡英文在大選期間就揭示「五大新興產業」的政策，主張重點發展智慧機械、亞洲矽谷（物聯網產業）、綠能科技、生醫產業、國防產業。蔡當選後，因應各方要求，又增列新農業、循環經濟兩項，形成執政後「五加二產業」的政策。相對於馬英九執政時期模糊的產業政策，民進黨似乎有意凸顯對產業發展的重視。「五大新興產業」基本上都是製造業…………新政府設立一個類似新加坡淡馬錫的投資公司，名為台杉資本，部分由政府出資外，募集民間資金，投資於五大新興產業。此外,針對綠能和國防產業，以政府採購的方式，企圖育成國內相關產業。例如在綠能科技方面，利用離岸風機的採購，植入國產化的條款，以拉抬國內的供應鏈……可見政治雖然已經民主化，政府選擇贏家的傾向並未改變，「新興策略性產業」的觀念仍揮之不去。如果不是舊習難改,就是這種政策有利於執政……五大新興產業的發展強調「先國內、後國際」的策略，先在國內練兵，創造國內冠軍（國家隊），再出馬國際，爭取國際冠軍。過去台灣產業的發展策略從來沒有這種「先內後外」的策略，向來一開始就面向國際。如果沒有國際市場，台灣產業就沒有機會走出第一步；從來只有在國際市場練兵，沒有國內練兵。這種極端的全球化思維使台灣產業發展成功，也避免政府過度介入產業發展，揠苗助長
未達破產線的金融機構則可將不良債權售予和「重建基金」同時設立的三家「資產管理公司」，逐步改善資產負債的結構。政府為了協助金融機構改善體質,把它們的營業稅由五%降到二‧五%，讓它們慢慢累積盈餘，提高自有資本比率。政府的溫暖措施讓良莠不齊的金融機構都度過危機，二○○四年後政府試圖推動金融機構整併（第二次金改），因時機已晚，遭遇政治上的巨大阻力。缺乏整併，使台灣金融機構，尤其是銀行，遲遲無法跳脫規模過小、缺乏效率的困境。銀行無法承擔較高的風險，乃一昧追逐新興的消費貸款和理財市場，在金融產業全球化的浪潮下，長期困在低成長的深淵中。它們長年保有巨額的爛頭寸，使台灣無論是小型或大型企業都失去冒險的能力
二○○○年以後，政府為了保護出口動能，乃以低估匯率和引進外籍勞工作為主要政策工具……二○○七年又容許三班工作制的製造業可以引進外勞…多為滿足電子產業夜班工作的需求。製造業外勞人數在二○一○年以前以總量管制，維持在十八萬人左右，此後逐漸增加，現在已經超過三十萬人
在這段期間，國內儲蓄仍然充足，但投資遲緩，資本形成占GDP的比例不斷下降，大量的超額儲蓄造成金融體系的資金氾濫
台灣的經濟發展向來重製造業，輕服務業，從政府組織就可看出來。在經濟部內，主管製造業的工業局人手多，預算多；主管商業的商業司，機構層級矮一截，而且人手少、預算少。商業以外的服務業分屬不同部會管轄，如主管金融服務的金管會、主管醫療服務的衛生署（今為今為衛福部）、主管教育服務的教育部等，這些部會的主要權責都是監督管理，不是產業發展，部內也無主責產業發展的單位。政府的產業政策其實就是製造業發展政策，服務業向來不在產業政策的設定範圍內
一般台商在共享、共創的過程中，當技術厲害到某種程度時，不是被合作夥伴合併吸收，就是被客戶刻意創造的敵手圍堵而失去市場
台灣的邏輯IC代工龍頭台積電，雖然營運模式和DRAM廠並無不同，但命運完全不同，不但逃過2008年的金融風暴而毫髮未傷，而且日益茁壯，今天已經是全球公認的技術領導廠商，台灣的護國神山。台積電和台灣DRAM代工廠最大的不同是自始就擁有自主設計和製造的技術，雖然這些技術可能落後領先的
當一個新時代到來時，有些人設法去適應它，有些人則藉機推翻舊勢力。設法適應時代的乖乖牌免於被淘汰，但不會有獨角獸出現的奇蹟；利用大好的新時代造反的人才會創造奇蹟
事實上，台灣的企業家不論是事業有成的，或者正在創業的，都充分意識到網路時代的到來，並且採取因應措施。也有許多夢想家利用網路帶來的機會進行創新，可惜他們的創新未能達到「顛覆性」的等級，因此無法成就一隻獨角獸。
台灣知名經濟學家、台北政經學院(TSE)院長陳添枝教授，應邀擔任台灣產業創生平台2022年
台灣的品牌廠大部分失敗於和消費者的溝通上
Social trust is a belief in the honesty, integrity and reliability of others - a "faith in people." It's a simple enough concept to describe. But it's never been easy to figure out who trusts, or why.
Sorry for the hiatus. I keep doing podcasts and articles on other sites for Trust in a Polarized Age, and I don’t want to irritate my readers on social media with too much content. When I get done talking about the book so often, I’ll return to my regularly scheduled blogging. Lots of people talk […]
Read the report > The UK public are among the most trusting globally, with internationally high levels of trust in people of different nationalities, people they meet for the first time, and people they know personally.Of the nations included, the UK ranks second for trust in foreigners, with such trust now at a record high following a rise over...
Americans’ views of politics and elected officials are unrelentingly negative, with little hope of improvement on the horizon. 65% of Americans say they always or often feel exhausted when thinking about politics. By contrast, just 10% say they always or often feel hopeful about politics.
Public trust in government remains low, as it has for much of the 21st century. Only two-in-ten Americans say they trust the government in Washington to do what is right “just about always” (2%) or “most of the time” (19%).
A median of 62% of adults across the 14 countries surveyed this summer generally believe most people can be trusted.
Trust is essential for community, wellbeing, and effective cooperation. How does trust vary between different societies and locations and what matters for levels of trust?
Morris Pearl, Chair of the Patriotic Millionaires and former Managing Director at BlackRock, said: “In recent decades, wealth inequality has skyrocketed around the world. The growing gap between rich and poor has destabilised the global economy, exacerbated the rise of extremist politics, and frayed the very fabric of our social order. As an ultra-wealthy person, representing an organisation of like-minded wealthy people, I am asking the G20 to tax us
In an open letter to the G20, close to 300 millionaires, economists, and political representatives from almost all G20 countries call for a new international agreement on wealth taxes to “stop extreme wealth from corroding our collective future”.
to reduce dangerous levels of inequality; if they fail to tax extreme wealth, the results will be a perpetually weakened global economy, the decline of democratic institutions, and worsening social unrest
the vested interests in maintaining the current system, including billionaires, the fossil fuel sector, big pharma, defense, and industrial agriculture will continue to fight to prevent the transformative changes needed. To overcome our societal addiction to the current system will require a broad consensus and movement of movements around the shared goal of sustainable wellbeing for humans and the rest of nature
13 August 2023 -
G20 Leaders must tax extreme wealth
time lags involved in building dynastic fortunes ... Inequality of income must precede growing inequality of wealth, since wealth is simply the cumulative excess of income over consumption.So, given the current era of highly unequal incomes and social immobility, we can expect inheritance to play a much bigger role in explaining inequality for the generations now entering adulthood. That will include direct transfers of wealth, mainly via inheritances, as well as the effects of increasingly unequal access to education, early job opportunities and home ownership
Are we creating a society Jane Austen might recognise?
those born to families who lack the resources needed to give them a head start in life. More generally, it is likely to be economically and socially stagnant. A patrimonial society inevitably wastes much of its talent, instead putting its privileged children into positions of power and influence for which they may have little aptitude
the proposal to tax the unrealised capital gains of assets passed on through inheritance, which would substantially reduce inherited inequality. Precisely for this reason, it is the object of vigorous attacks from lobbyists for the wealthy
The wealth of the very top grew even faster ... Wealth for dynastic families has grown significantly during the COVID-19 pandemic...Dynastically wealthy families wield a great deal of political power, and use it to further their interests
Together 50 families hold about half of the wealth of the bottom half of all U.S.households, an estimated 65 million families, and their wealth grew at ten times the rate of ordinary families during the last 40 years.
This chart show the cumulative expected wealth transfers until 2030, by would region and wealth tier (in billion U.S. dollars).
International tax law distinguishes between an estate tax and an inheritance tax. An inheritance tax is a tax paid by a person who inherits money or property of a person who has died, whereas an estate tax is a levy on the estate (money and property) of a person who has died.[1] However, this distinction is not always observed; for example, the...
In economics, a gift tax is the tax on money or property that one living person or corporate entity gives to another.[1] A gift tax is a type of transfer tax that is imposed when someone gives something of value to someone else. The transfer must be gratuitous or the receiving party must pay a lesser amount than the item's full value to be...
A transfer tax is a tax on the passing of title to property from one person (or entity) to another. In a narrow legal sense, a transfer tax is essentially a transaction fee imposed on the transfer of title to property from one entity to another. This kind of tax is typically imposed where there is a legal requirement for registration of the...
we don’t need more do-gooder billionaires that give to charity — we need fewer billionaires.The problem isn’t really individuals making money. The problem is having an entire system that grows the wealth of billionaires at the expense of everything else we care about — including our democracy.... Wealth is concentrating
Many billionaires invest their fortunes in a way that only expands their own wealth and power, writes Chuck Collins, the director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies.
去年遺贈稅總稅收高達576億元，以稅率10%推估，等於1年有近6000億元規模的資產，正在進行世代移轉……
廢除遺贈稅 吸引資金回流 建設台灣
馬英九的競選政見本來只說要將遺產稅免稅額及扣除額，提高到2600萬元，反而是謝長廷承諾要將免稅額提高到3000萬元，並將遺產稅最高邊際稅率由50% 降低到10%。但7月23日，工商協進會與劉兆玄早餐，要求將遺產稅先調降至20%，將來完全廢除。劉兆玄表示贊同
過去十幾年中華民國政府所推政策中最爛最爛的是哪個政策？我可以毫不猶豫地告訴你：就是在2008年將原本50%最高邊際稅率的遺產稅率，一舉降為10%。這個政策背後有太多太多的可疑之處
1：資本集中的必然趨勢[啟動LINE推播]每日重大新聞通知法國皮凱提（ThomasPiketty）教授的新書CapitalintheTwentyFirstCentury（我暫譯為《廿一世紀資本論》）獲得《紐約時報》極佳書評，而諾貝爾經濟學獎得主克魯曼甚至誇讚，此書是今年甚或最近十
遺產贈予稅當然可以課，但是資本家七、八十年行將入土才能被課一次遺產稅，且若生前安排得宜，就算課也可能課不到太多，對抑制資本累積效果還不夠。於是皮凱提遂主張：每年課「總資本持有稅」，例如每年1%或2%。這種資本持有稅就像是房屋稅、地價稅一樣，個人持有期間年年要繳，只是稅基不只是土地房屋，而是所有資產財富，包括股票、現金等等。皮凱提認為，既然資本報酬率動輒4%或5%，那麼抽個一趴兩趴稅資本家當然付得起，只是稍微減緩他們的資本累積速度而已……這些稅收他主張用於政府補助的教育與健保，而要透過健康改善與教育普及，去打破「富有資本家持續富有、貧窮底層持續貧窮」的社會不流動
保護個資對每個人都同等重要。但是對我們勞動階級而言，在開曼群島既無紙上控股公司、在瑞士銀行也無鉅額秘密帳戶，所謂資產個資云云，跟我們有什麼關係？在台灣擔任公職要公佈財產，這對一窮二白的人而言根本無所謂，也只有家財萬貫的大有錢人，才害怕錢財露白。更何況，全球各國資產帳戶互通資訊，是為了避免大富豪逃稅；而要求逃稅大戶如實繳稅，目的是要以此收入多做一些所得重分配的褔利措施，天經地義。此外，「公開互通財產帳資料」是只限於政府稅捐機關之間，而不是要向外人公開
等到資本累積集中之弊更凸顯，等到大部分人民都理解到社會真的是「of 1%、for 1%、by 1%」的時候，人民才會同意全球資產持有稅。皮凱提的貢獻，大概就是「還沒有見到棺材就提醒大家帶手帕」
Within a decade, however, the effect is reversed: inheritances increase wealth inequality since the different depletion rates widen the inequality in inherited wealth over time
Abstract. This article aims to measure and understand the role of inheritances in shaping wealth inequality. We use a quasi-experimental design and Swedish admi
rising inequality is legitimated by the popular belief that the income gap is meritocratically deserved: the more unequal a society, the more likely its citizens are to explain success in meritocratic terms, and the less important they deem nonmeritocratic factors such as a person’s family wealth and connections
many downplay the intergenerational privilege associated with gifting by reporting extended family histories of working-class struggle, upward social mobility and meritocratic striving
Inheritance fundamentally violates the meritocratic justice principle of society
Inheritance fundamentally violates the meritocratic justice principle of society. Despite the high level of wealth concentration and the fact that few peop
intergenerational transfers, such as inheritances and inter vivos gifts, play a significant role in underpinning wealth inequality. When inheritances and gifts exceed a certain threshold, the opportunities to accumulate more wealth are greatly expanded
Wealth inequality can limit people’s ability to accumulate human capital, carry out business projects, or cope with major economic crises. Focusing on France, Spain, the UK, and the US, this column shows that intergenerational transfers, such as inheritances and inter vivos gifts, play a significant role in underpinning wealth inequality. When inheritances and gifts exceed a certain threshold, the opportunities to accumulate more wealth are greatly expanded.
美國的起源是清教徒尋找自由土地，其個人主義的「個人」，有信仰約束，自有分寸。現在，信仰淡薄，個人主義淪於自私。
獨立精神也顯示了個人主義代表的自由觀念，及其過度發揮後，因而出現的人情冷漠，與趨利忘義的嚴重弊端
大量資金已經用來炒作非生產事業
中產階層和他們原本是雇主群的富豪們之間，原本關係相當密切，現在由於富豪遷移他處……富豪們與他們中產階層僱員之間，也彼此脫了節
新出現的社會階層化，在這二十年來，遂與過去不同了。過去的富人、中產、貧寒三級區隔，其間生活方式與意識形態的差異，沒有今天各階層之間的距離，如此遙遠……
貧富差異的程度加大，各階層之間彼此異化，已經無法逆轉
一旦情況改變，整個地區，全部遭災……已經衰敗無法重振
中年人，也就常常是沒有可以傾訴自己情緒，分享成敗的伴侶
當人與人之間，只能以「利」相處時，人間不會再有人類情感
「我可以爲所欲爲，因爲我是勝者。」這個現象
