経済音痴がわからない経済について書くのはつらいものがあるが、冷泉氏が引用していたピケティー、サマーなどについて言及がある。
What Thomas Piketty and Larry Summers Don’t Tell You About Income Inequality
So-called reasonable proposals on how to fix inequality are really a bunch of hot air.
By Lynn Stuart Parramore / AlterNet
February 6, 2015
格差があるとして、格差の原因については、ピケティーやサマーは意見が異なるわけですね。
もっとも、ピケティーによせ、サマーにせよ、その処方箋は、
LT: Summers is the bellwether of mainstream macroeconomics. When he changes his mind others follow, so his recognition of the problem of income inequality is all to the good. But the mainstream’s basic supply-driven growth model is the same as Piketty’s, which is reflected in the CAP report. The report does mention the problem of deficient demand — how the economy suffers when regular people don’t have enough money to spend on goods and services, and it advocates policies to boost income. But the basic analysis looks at potential economic growth from the supply side. Its recommendations such as improved education (or more “human capital”), modest tax reform, and provision of public jobs, tailored to perceived political limitations, are mostly supply-oriented and of the same magnitude as the ones I’ve mentioned. I doubt that they would much impact on American inequality.
サプライサイド経済学であり、アメリカの経済についてどれだけ影響があるか、疑問である、と。例えば、
LP: Let’s take a look at a couple of ideas that are popular right now, like raising the minimum wage and increasing taxes on the highest income brackets. How might these measures impact income inequality in America?
LT: How much could the top 1 percent “reasonably” be taxed? If we wanted to tax them as much as rich European countries do, we’d have to double their tax burden. The Obama administration is now floating an increase of about 1 percent of the top group’s income. That’s not going to do a lot for income inequality given how much richer the rich have gotten since 1980. A marginal tax rate around 60 percent, the Scandinavian norm, could do the trick, but putting it into place here seems highly unlikely. The same observation applies to higher capital gains taxation and Piketty’s recommendation of a tax on wealth. It won’t be enough.
Of course taxes could also be raised on less affluent households, but the prospects are not much better. Our models show that unless the U.S. tax/transfer system is made dramatically more progressive, adjustments around the edges will not have much impact on income inequality.
On the wage front, we looked at what would happen if you raised the wages 10 percent for the poorest 20 percent, and 5 percent for the next 20 percent. That would sound like a pretty big proposal if an American politician floated it. But our models show that it hardly moves the Palma ratio. It does very little to change income inequality.
累進課税の強化ということで、オバマ政権は、最高税率を１％あげるといっているが、不平等解消にはならない、と。北欧並みの６０％にすれあ、うまくいくが、しかし、実行するのは不可能に近い、 最貧困層の賃金を２０％、貧困層の賃金５％あげるというのは政策的にはかなり大胆だが、それでも格差はなかなか縮まらない、と。
富が富裕層に集中してしまう社会にならないようにするにはどうしたらよかんべ、というと、
LP: So what’s to stop us from becoming a Downton Abbey society?
LT: We’ve got to have a real social consensus that the way things are going is dangerous and unacceptable, and an understanding that it will take seriously progressive taxation to make a dent in the problem. But I am not optimistic about the prospects.
格差是正するには、かなり深刻な累進課税を課さなくてはならないが、記事の筆者は楽観的ではない、と。
経済はわからない。いろんな人が、格差の原因、処方箋についていろんなことをいう。素人は混乱するばかり。
しかし、大きな格差があり、それは問題ということだけは素人としても実感がある。
とにかく、頭のいい人になんとかしてもらいたい。
