RTや
アルジャが取り上げている報告で、
OXFAM MEDIA BRIEFING
18 January 2013 Ref: 02/2012
The cost of inequality: how wealth and income
extremes hurt us all
Extreme wealth and inequality is economically inefficient
A growing chorus of voices is pointing to the fact that whilst a certain level of inequality may
benefit growth by rewarding risk takers and innovation, the levels of inequality now being seen
are in fact economically damaging and inefficient
23
. They limit the overall amount of growth, and
at the same time mean that growth fails to benefit the majority. Consolidation of so much wealth
and capital in so few hands is inefficient because it depresses demand
The top 100 billionaires added $240 billion to their wealth in 2012- enough to end world poverty four times over. As a result growth in more equal countries is much more
effective at reducing poverty.
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Politically Corrosive
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Socially Divisive
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is Environmentally Destructive
Extreme Wealth and Inequality is un ethical
Gandhi famously said “Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's
greed.”
Free public services are crucial to levelling the playing field. In countries like Sweden, knowing that if you get sick or that you will receive good treatment regardless of your income, is one of the greatest achievements and the greatest equalisers of the modern world. Knowing that if you lose your job, or fall on hard times, there is a safety net to help you and your family, is also key to tackling inequality. Similarly, access to good quality education for all is a huge weapon against
inequality.
Finally, regulation and taxation play a critical role in reining in extreme wealth and inequality.
Limits to bonuses, or to how much people can earn as a multiple of the earnings of the lowest
paid, limits to interest rates, limits to capital accumulation are all only recently-abandoned policy instruments that can be revived. Progressive taxation that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor is essential, but currently the opposite is the case – taxation is increasingly regressive and the poor pay higher effective tax rates than the rich, a point recently highlighted by Warren Buffet among others, who has called for greater taxes on the rich 48 . Cracking down on tax avoidance and tax evasion goes hand in hand with more progressive taxation. Closing tax havens and ending the global race to the bottom on taxation, for example with a globally agreed minimum rate of corporation tax would make a huge difference It is estimated that up to a quarter of all global wealth – as much as $32 trillion - is held offshore 49 . If these assets were taxed according to capital gains taxes in different countries, they could yield at least $189 billion in additional tax revenues
極端な所得格差があると、経済的にも、政治的にも、社会的にも、倫理的にも・・・あらゆる面でよくない、と。
例えば、極端な格差社会では、金持が金持過ぎて、金、使わないし、貧乏人は使う金がないから、経済が回っていかないわけで、社会全体として非効率なわけですね。つまり、経済的に成長も妨げている。
そして、極端に困った人たちを余裕が十分ありながら救いの手をさしのべないのは、倫理的にもけしからんことで、世界のトップ100の大金持ちが去年稼いだ富で、世界の極端な貧困地域を救済するには余りあるそうな。
大富豪であることは罪ですな。
で、所得格差を縮めるのにどうしたらいいか、というと、セーフティネットの拡充とか、無償教育、あるいは、累進課税制とか、租税回避地の禁止などがあげられている。
好意的にとりあげながらも
Can we fight poverty by ending extreme wealth?
Posted by Olga Khazan on January 20, 2013
Those tactics sound good, but they’d require something else that unfortunately the most unequal countries also lack: governments willing to risk angering their wealthiest citizens in order to improve life for the poorest.
金持を怒らせるような政策を政府はとることはないだろう、とWapoのブログが結んでいる。
バランスの問題もあろうが、格差を是正して、全体として、経済の効率を上げられるという観点は面白かった。
日本でも格差是正、セーフティーネットの拡充などは緊急の課題だろう。累進課税はいたし方あるまい。
また、日本の議論なかでは、倫理的な観点をもっと強く押し出しされてもよい。
自由化は、それはそれでいいが、もう一つ、日本の美徳の衰退、極端な格差を支える富豪たちの貪欲さを、保守の人たちは批判すべきであろう。