人才短缺是一個多因素的複雜問題，無法靠單一企業或團體解決，我們需要在生態系統的不同槓桿點找到位置，共同施力
104 人力銀行的徵才資料庫顯示，2023 年 10 月上架 104 人力銀行的工作數來到史上最高，達 108 萬個；而徵才、績效管理、人才培育等成本也較前年提升。在後疫情時代，隨著科技日新月異，企業應如何發展人才永續經營策略？在地緣政治、低生育率、AI崛起的複雜時代，我們應如何招募、孕育、留住人才？Omplexity與天下合作，嘗試透過國際論壇、工作坊、與最新的改革連署，推動人才永續的系統變革。
A Kumu Project.
近年來國內外員工離職潮的攀升，使各大企業逐漸開始正視員工幸福感及組織內部人事的整體性問題。藉由實體案例分享，能發現工作量、團隊穩定度等都會影響到員工的離職率。Omplexity藉由繪製系統圖來探討員工離職原因背後的因果關係，希望協助企業增進留才策略，達到組織內部的系統性變革。
政策說帖有很多種類型，比方說針對某個法案修法氛圍正熱或值得強力主推時，就會做該法案的一些關鍵爭點與民間建議的說帖，那種就會比較細緻；而新立委上任拜會的說帖就要盡可能用精要的詞語，先介紹自己與廣泛介紹各個法案，然後法案說帖的內容會用附件方式處理。但無論如何，格式上都是一樣的。扣除掉封面與前言，並依照短中長期順序排列各類議題（單一法案說帖通常都不用）後，每個議題的形式會是「背景」、「問題指認」、「政策建議」。可以使用精簡的段落，也可以僅是列點，但務必清晰。你的TA是「對這議題不見得那麼熟悉的委員」，搭配拜會時的解說要直接切入正題，不要繞來繞去或放太多無關資訊，要尊重委員的時間，並且最好先做點功課找與委員領域最相近的議題（如社福+住宅=社宅議題）等。而在說帖寫作上，面對「政策建議」上的苦惱應該是比較常見的。其實平常沒有在做「政策建議」的話，我的經驗是可以先「指認當下現況有哪些重要困境或問題」，然後往回推導出「要解決這問題應該要怎麼做」。但值得注意的是，「問題指認的完成度」很容易讓人產生錯覺。因為你可能下意識覺得你知道問題出在哪了，或那些問題「人盡皆知」、「有眼睛的都看得出來」，但細究之下卻根據不足。這方面就要看各自找尋資料的敏銳度，而其實只要這階段的內容做得紮實，往往一些「政策建議」也就呼之欲出。至於要如何把資料紮實下來，可以使用一些書籍、政府公開統計資料等等，政府公開資料多如牛毛，但如果從別人引用這筆資料的文章中知道「有這筆資料」，再回頭找原始檔，往往有意外驚喜。甚至光是看這些統計資料，很多事情就已經可以顛覆你的想像，已經可以發現一些問題的端倪了。如果發現想要指認或解決你心中的那個問題，但公開資料仍遠遠不足的話，可以透過民調、問卷等方式取得資料，而另一種方式就是政府內部統計資料，通常是NGO與立委／議員問政上進行合作。所以如果還不知道要怎麼提出政策建議，至少先盤點出還缺什麼資訊幫助你判斷建議如何進行。一方面透過公開資料、問卷或與民代合作找到這些資訊，一方面看看國內外有沒有相關研究已經提到這個爭論或已有更好的制度處理這個問題，也能開拓你最後提出解方的眼界（國外的OOO制度很好，但搬來台灣會卡到XXX法，那就從XXX法開始修吧）。回到一切的基礎：資料。公開資訊沒什麼好講，就是蹲馬步笨功夫，摸得夠熟才會有「這筆資料跟之前的另一筆資料對起來，好像會發生有趣的事！」的靈光一閃；而與民代合作的問題要先確保其他功課都先做好了，問題都有列對，再去麻煩人家，問題盡量越簡單越清晰越好，列點呈現，不要讓行政部門有顧左右而言他的迴避空間。我們跟立委合作看到的各種多屋家戶資料，已經不知道有沒有加起來快二十次了。一開始可能會因為各種粗疏被耍，但你總會逐漸逼近真實。大部分的狀況下，資料上這樣就可以了。但有些資料即便與民代合作也不好取得。有些是真的皮到怎樣都不給或亂給，或是這個資料跨部會勾稽所以很難要（如內政部統計處與財政部財資中心），那就要更麻煩委員辦公室，需要請委員把這些部門都一次揪來開協調會。看這個資料的整合上，大家各自有什麼困難，建立對接窗口，當場把負責與期限分派好，期限到了之後再來驗收。而有些時候，你真正想問的問題是不可能拿得到的。需要靠編織問題網去逼近真相，想辦法提出一些可實證且政府必然會有的數據，透過這些數據推導出你想問到的答案，整個過程有點像玩海龜湯。比方說，台灣不可能有任何部門有辦法且有意願統計「台灣租屋黑市佔多少比例？」。那我們就請委員協助釐清了「台灣有多少戶繳納租賃所得稅？繳了多少錢？」與「台灣有多少租屋族用租金抵稅？」這兩筆數據。經處理過後，粗略估算台灣租屋黑市七至九成以上，這個推估最後因為資料限制，絕對還是有不精確之處，且還沒更新最新年份的比例，但這已經是目前全台灣最準確的數據了。甚至連監察院審議部報告都使用我們講的「租屋黑市」這個詞。最後，還是有一些資料是真的要不到的，就是政府壓根沒做這個統計，比方說「有多少領取租金補貼／入住包租代管的房客，有設籍在租屋處？」這個問題就因為根本沒有這個統計欄位所以要不到。但有些時候，「根本沒有某些重要資訊」本身或許就可以是一個問題，政策建議就是「要求政府統計此項資訊」。所以一份說帖最重要的，其實是問題指認夠不夠清晰。只要能夠回應這些問題．解方與政策建議都可以調整。而這整個過程中，數據與資訊的重要性一以貫之。至於一份說帖要不要具備政治判斷？我覺得需要，但不見得需要見於文字。
剛剛跟NGO朋友聊到用來倡議的「政策說帖」怎麼寫，我自己也只有一些摸索與言傳身教而來的粗淺認識，不確定對誰有用（甚至是否有用），諸君姑且看之。...
「MENU」，因為這會是一份今年我們盤點最緊急或最重要的法案改革清單。「MENU」的用途是讓我們拜訪新立委時，讓他們能最方便認知道我們有什麼「菜品」。有一些「菜品」會是我們特別介紹適合這位委員的，有一些則是讓委員辦公室評估之後，看要不要一起點這道菜。這種玩意做起來要頗花力氣，我大概寫完目錄之後給大廚（秘書長）審閱後，後廚真正儲備的「菜品」本身，開議之前就至少要先寫完三樣最有時效性的議題（有一樣分給同事，所以我至少要寫二樣）；而每道菜品都是套餐，有且只有「背景」、「問題指認」、「政策建議」，在可以寫清楚的前提下，字能少就少，不要寫任何其他廢話
剛剛完成了前兩天說腳摔到的那篇文章，待刊出後再跟大家分享。內容大概會是「以青年投票趨勢，重新定位台灣住宅政策與戰略」，並提出針對在野黨／執政黨推動政策的策略剖析」。接下來我要處理的工作，我親切地叫它「MENU」...
「生態旅遊只能當副業，不能當主業。」林晏州直接卻中肯的闡述生態旅遊的意涵…… 經營者或周遭居民也絕不能有靠著旅遊致富的不當憧憬，要懂得把握細水長流的原則，那才是永續經營的不變法則。「慢慢吃，不會太撐，但絕不會餓死；吃太快，只會噎著，更因而讓子孫斷糧。」
the site managers and local residents must never have such an illusion that ecotourism can bring instant wealth
陳美惠覺得最難是觀念的轉變，「過去滿腦子都是拼經濟，會影響到當地環境，甚至人與人的關係」
「這些鄉村走過台灣大開發年代，但當居民看到有野生動物，有那麼美的山村、溪流，有那麼好的人情味，就要呵護她，不再殺雞取卵。」屏東科技大學森林系教授陳美惠，人稱「本土生態旅遊教母」，過去20年，她陪伴幾十個社區尋找與山林永續共存的經濟模式——從養蜂、種菇、養山雞，到開展深度生態旅遊。這些故事集結成書《里山根經濟︰社區林業的知和行20年》，記錄社區轉型的一步一腳印。 山村綠色經濟碰上疫情，也是生態旅遊的一次壓力測試。當外國人來台灣已不只是要看夜市、逛名勝，疫後的生態觀光產業如何永續下去？陳美惠和開辦生態團的旅行社業者，提到改革法規、培訓人力、改善交通配套、推廣企業員工旅遊等，都是未來機遇。 屏東科技大學森林系教授陳美惠（右）及經典雜誌副總編潘美玲（左），撰寫《里山根經濟︰社區林業的知和行20年》並舉行新書發布會。攝影︰袁慧妍 「最難是觀念的轉變」 14日，農業部林業及自然保育署與陳美惠、經典雜誌副總編輯潘美玲，舉行《里山根經濟︰社區林業的知和行20年》新書發布會。林業保育署長林華慶稱，全國很多社區都開始探索在地資源，推動社區生態旅遊，「應該讓她展現原來的美麗」。 而這個過程中，陳美惠覺得最難是觀念的轉變，「過去滿腦子都是拼經濟，會影響到當地環境，甚至人與人的關係」。 2002年，陳美惠在當時的林務局工作，研擬社區林業計畫；2004年她轉任屏科大教授，並成立台灣首間社區林業研究室。她首個輔導的生態旅遊案例，是墾丁社頂部落——1984年墾丁國家公園成立時，不少部落被劃入國家公園範圍，禁止狩獵漁撈，官民起了劇烈衝突。至2006年，陳美惠走入社頂部落，每週一兩晚與居民開會幾小時，再開兩小時夜車趕回屏東市，隔天一早回校上課，這樣的生活她過了三年，慢慢打開居民的心。 在社頂部落，陳美惠規劃了梅花鹿尋蹤和日夜生態體驗等行程，也是南台灣首個以自主營運和生態旅遊獲利的部落，2015年獲第三屆國家環境教育獎團體組首獎。 早期屏東社頂部落進行第一批的夜間觀察導覽。圖片來源︰國立屏東科技大學社區林業中心提供 這些保育與生計之間的拉扯，在輔導其他社區或部落時也同樣發生，陳美惠提了好幾次「要化解不信任感」。她利用人際網絡影響更多居民，「不要只講保育，居民沒感受，我們的主張是保全跟活用」。 這20年間，台灣除生產既有的龍眼蜜、荔枝花蜜外，社區小農也開發出花蜜、草蜜、樹蜜等森林蜜；從段木香菇菌種弱化，到打造出社區型菌種中心；在恆春里德社區，獵鷹者變成護鷹者，開拓了生態觀光的商機。這些不同的社區，從一級農業生產，二級加工，做到三級旅遊行銷。 花蓮鹽寮社區發展林下養蜂。圖片來源︰國立屏東科技大學社區林業中心提供 林華慶稱，20年來社區林業推展過程中，已執行了3371項計畫。以最近五年為例，共計970項計畫中，與林下經濟相關的「樹木與生活篇」共92件（9.5%），與生態旅遊相關的「森林育樂篇」則有226件（23.3%）。林業保育署正研擬國際認定的有效保育地（OECM）認證標準，預計明年下半年推出指引，推估有五成以上社區林業有潛力可被納入。 林下養雞。圖片來源︰國立屏東科技大學社區林業中心提供 「不願意負擔對等的價格，去反映地方的價值」 20年奠下的基礎得來不易，推展社區生態旅遊仍會面對什麼困難？又如何在疫後報復式的出國潮中走出一條路？ 風尚旅行社總經理游智維12年前開始開辦部落或環境相關旅遊，他說，民眾認為城市團的價格高，以為社區旅遊的成本最低，「但這是錯的」，因為社區的材料、人力都稀少，提供服務和產品的成本更大，「可是大家不願意負擔對等的價格去反映地方的價值，這是台灣很大的問題。」 政府不同部門都有推出生態、部落、農村、文化旅遊等，但游智維覺得這些只是為了「滿足KPI」，既沒有有效投放資源，又沒法提供深度的旅遊設計；台灣大部分傳統旅行社，仍然以辦護照、買機票、報團、訂房間為主要業務，「台灣有幾千家旅行社，如果都能成為政府連接社區資源的地方，旅行社不只是中介者，未來能否成為供應者？」 農民在新書發布會上介紹產品和社區林業發展。攝影︰袁慧妍 另一家提供生態旅遊服務的原森旅行社副執行長黃俊翰則指，疫情期間成了生態旅遊的壓力測試，當人潮過多，就考驗當地居民導覽的能力。但優質的社區，還需要有資源爭取曝光，吸引旅行社注意，「例如可成立推廣協會、聯盟，參與政府單位的觀光活動」。 黃俊翰認為，一般散客會認為自行開車也可四處遊覽，散客市場較難推進，未來可考慮開拓企業團體員工旅遊市場。他也建議政府可提供交通接駁，讓不開車的民眾也可較容易接觸到社區。 「時機到了，國家應該要重視這一塊」 除一般政策改善、人力培訓、資源和預算投放外，陳美惠提議要改革法規。她指，受《發展觀光條例》第27條所限，只有旅行社可以帶團做生態旅遊，社區自行做串連型旅遊則不被允許。不過，「大部分旅行社都忙著帶出國團，沒幾多旅行社會專心經營這種產品」，故不能只靠旅行社與少數社區合作；當政府希望社區自立自強時，「有沒有法規讓社區在合法情況下，呈現地區優質的產品？」 2019年，她曾成立「社區小旅行合法化推動平台」和發起連署，倡議將社區特色小旅行、生態旅遊、農事或部落文化體驗等，以特定區域內的深度體驗為特色的地方產業，統稱為「特定地區小旅行」，並修訂發展觀光條例，新增特定地區小旅行專章，或由支持輔導特定地區小旅行的部會，如有法源依據者應修法納管（如《農村再生條例》），如無法源依據者（如文化部），應立專法或管理條例。 「外國人來台灣已不只是要看夜市、逛名勝。台灣的生態旅遊、里山，都可以為台灣觀光助力，這是一般觀光業者做不出來的。時機到了，國家應該要重視這一塊。」陳美惠說。
「要化解不信任感」
at least 228 of America’s biggest (Fortune 500) corporations — representing more than two-thirds of some 300 companies with political action committees — have given $26.3 million to election deniers during the 2021-2024 election cycles... giant corporations that announced they wouldn’t support election deniers but reversed course include FedEx, which has given the deniers $303,000 since January, 2021. Home Depot, $602,500. Johnson & Johnson, $138,000. McDonald’s, $107,000. UPS, $575,000. Verizon, $250,500. Walmart, $297,000. Wells Fargo, $244,500
They say they want to build public trust and avoid political upheaval, but they’re bankrolling election deniers
Note that these numbers show only the donations that corporations are openly disclosing — not funds they’re channeling through trade associations, super PACs, and dark money groups
And the same companies will be giving millions to the “others side” too. As my dearly departed Mother used to say, “playing both ends against the middle”
In this case, the "other side" is the United States of America
Big money has created a deep cynicism about our democracy, which Trump and election-deniers are exploiting to the hilt. Those of us who care about democracy must do more than vanquish Trumpism. We...
烏衣巷在南京秦淮河南岸，原為東吳烏衣營的駐地，故名，後為東晉時高門士族的聚居區，東晉開國元勛王導和指揮淝水之戰的謝安都住在這裏，在刘宋、南齐时期，定居于乌衣巷的琅邪王氏支系因为官位不高，门第被琅邪王氏定居于马粪巷的一支马粪诸王压倒。...
According to conservative Oren Cass, private equity captures wealth rather than creating it, and this capture can be "zero-sum, or even value-destroying, in aggregate." He describes "assets get shuffled and reshuffled, profits get made, but relatively little flows toward actual productive uses....a tax loophole enshrined in the U.S. tax code, carried interest that accrues to private equity firms is treated as capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than is ordinary income. Currently, the long term capital gains tax rate is 20% compared with the 37% top ordinary income tax rate for individuals. This loophole has been estimated to cost the government $130 billion over the next decade in unrealized revenue. Armies of corporate lobbyists and huge private equity industry donations to political campaigns in the United States have ensured that this powerful industry receives this favorable tax treatment by the government. Private equity firms retain close to 200 lobbyists and over the last decade have made almost $600 million in political campaign contributions.In addition, through an accounting maneuver called "fee waiver", private equity firms often also treat management fee income as capital gains. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lacks the manpower and the expertise that would be necessary to track compliance with even these already quite favorable legal requirements. In fact, the IRS conducts nearly no income tax audits of the industry. As a result of the complexity of the accounting that arises from the fact that most private equity firms are organized as large partnerships, such that the firm's profits are apportioned to each of the many partners, a number of private equity firms fail to comply with tax laws, according to industry whistleblowers.
In the field of finance, private equity (PE) is stock in a private company that does not offer stock to the general public. Private equity is offered instead to specialized investment funds and limited partnerships that take an active role in the management and structuring of the companies. In casual usage, "private equity" can refer to these...
我常感慨：台灣的頂尖學生絕大部分在浪費青春，因為沒有人告訴他們有什麼值得學的，以及去哪裡學。 譬如，YouTube 上面有那麼多精采絕倫的演講與課程，很多頂大學生還是在忙著學一堆幼稚、膚淺的東西而且洋洋得意（譬如，把 備受學術界質疑而無法進入學術主流 的「...
According to conservative Oren Cass, private equity captures wealth rather than creating it, and this capture can be "zero-sum, or even value-destroying, in aggregate." He describes "assets get shuffled and reshuffled, profits get made, but relatively little flows toward actual productive uses."
a tax loophole enshrined in the U.S. tax code, carried interest that accrues to private equity firms is treated as capital gains, which is taxed at a lower rate than is ordinary income. Currently, the long term capital gains tax rate is 20% compared with the 37% top ordinary income tax rate for individuals. This loophole has been estimated to cost the government $130 billion over the next decade in unrealized revenue. Armies of corporate lobbyists and huge private equity industry donations to political campaigns in the United States have ensured that this powerful industry receives this favorable tax treatment by the government. Private equity firms retain close to 200 lobbyists and over the last decade have made almost $600 million in political campaign contributions.In addition, through an accounting maneuver called "fee waiver", private equity firms often also treat management fee income as capital gains. The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lacks the manpower and the expertise that would be necessary to track compliance with even these already quite favorable legal requirements. In fact, the IRS conducts nearly no income tax audits of the industry. As a result of the complexity of the accounting that arises from the fact that most private equity firms are organized as large partnerships, such that the firm's profits are apportioned to each of the many partners, a number of private equity firms fail to comply with tax laws, according to industry whistleblowers.
私立學校與大學都是以慈善機構的名義課稅，因為它們是為公共利益做出貢獻：校友的捐款可以減稅，學校與大學來自捐贈基金的所得也不必繳稅。這樣的操作使得菁英教育實際上變成一個只有菁英階層可以利用的避稅天堂……儘管菁英學府是以公益慈善機構的地位課稅，但是菁英體制的不均卻使其成為專屬俱樂部。他們在稅賦上所享有的優惠就有如貴族體制下發給王親貴族的津貼。然而菁英教育的學費卻是由中產階級家庭來承擔，而且他們自己的子女永遠無法獲得這樣的教育
incentive for taxpayers to retain appreciated property until death
The tax code of the United States holds that when a person (the beneficiary) receives an asset from a giver (the benefactor) after the benefactor dies, the asset receives a stepped-up basis, which is its market value at the time the benefactor dies (Internal Revenue Code § 1014(a)). A stepped-up basis can be higher than the before-death cost...
Nothing can be done.
Cynicism is an attitude characterized by a general distrust of the motives of others.[1] A cynic may have a general lack of faith or hope in people motivated by ambition, desire, greed, gratification, materialism, goals, and opinions that a cynic perceives as vain, unobtainable, or ultimately meaningless. The term originally derives from the...
不相信別人的熱情，不相信別人的義正辭嚴，不相信有所謂正義的呼喊，他們甚至不相信還能有什麼辦法改變他們所不相信的那個世界。他們把對現有秩序的不滿，轉化為一種「不拒絕的冷漠」、一種「不反抗的清醒」、一種「不認同的接受」，獨善其身，只要自己不受傷害即可。「既然世界是如此大荒謬，大玩笑，我亦惟有以荒謬和玩笑對待之。」
憤世嫉俗
放棄理想，放棄追求，甚至反過來嘲笑理想，嘲笑追求
Get ready for the ride.
How finance has contributed to widening inequality
The jobs of the future
Widening inequalities of place
Friends, good morning. Our fifth class begins our focus on power — and on the relative weakness of workers and the relative power of big corporations. Just double-click below, and you’re in the class. Background: It’s one of the oldest struggles inside the American economy and within capitalism worldwide: between labor and capital. And it has a direct effect on inequality.
Wealth isn’t a zero-sum game in which the rich get richer only if others become poorer, but political power is zero-sum
Friends, This week brings us to one of the core problems of widening inequality — the inevitability that concentrated income and wealth at the top comes with political power. Wealth isn’t a zero-sum game in which the rich get richer only if others become poorer, but political power
difference between “pre-distribution” and “redistribution” of income and wealth
We now turn to policies where widening inequality is directly implicated. The first and most obvious (and most politically contentious) involves taxing higher-income people and redistributing to lower-income people. My goal today is to get students to reexamine their assumptions, both about how the system of taxing and redistributing actually works (or doesn’t) and about the practical consequences.
Friends, Today I examine the morally and politically complex question of who deserves public assistance. Just click below, and you’re in the class. I reach back into history — to the 14th century, as well as to the last 40 years in America — to see how this question has been answered differently over time. And contrast the dominant view since the Clinton administration with a remarkable experiment America conducted between July and December 2021.
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...
