15 June 17
Analysis of a massive trove of data – much of it leaked from tax havens – suggests that inequality levels across the world should be revised upwards dramatically
he statistics on inequality – those used, for instance, in Thomas Piketty’s bestseller, Capital in the Twenty-First Century – only
include the income and wealth the taxman sees. So how high is
inequality when also accounting for what he doesn’t see? Recent leaks
from tax havens suggest the gap between the rich and the rest is even
wider than we think.
Tax
records are invaluable for the study of economic inequality. They
contain detailed information about the income (and, in some countries,
wealth) of taxpayers. Much of this information comes directly from
employers and banks, and is therefore reliable. And because tax records
exist as far back as the early 20th century, they can be used to shed
light on the long-term evolution of inequality.
The graphs published on the World Wealth and Income Database,
for example, show just how powerfully this information can inform the
public debate. The top 1% income share is now closely scrutinised by
journalists and policymakers in the US, where the rise of inequality has
been particularly extreme; it even gave the Occupy movement its motto:
“We are the 99%.”
But for all their merits, tax data raise an obvious
issue: by their very nature, they entirely miss tax evasion. Is this a
serious problem? That depends: if tax evasion is equally prevalent among
rich and poor, measured inequality will be unaffected. But if the rich
dodge taxes more than others, tax records will underestimate inequality.
Before now, there hadn’t been any attempts to address
the measurement of global tax evasion systematically. The reason is
simple: the lack of comprehensive information about who skirts taxes.
The key data source used in rich countries to study tax evasion is
random tax audits – but these audits do not capture tax evasion by the
very wealthy, because few of them are audited, and because random audits
fail to detect sophisticated forms of evasion involving shell companies
and hidden accounts.
In our recent study, however, we exploited a massive trove of data leaked from HSBC Switzerland, the so-called HSBC files,
to fill this gap. In 2007 a systems engineer, Hervé Falciani, extracted
the internal records of HSBC Private Bank, the Swiss subsidiary of
HSBC. In 2008, Falciani turned the data over to the French government,
who shared it with foreign tax administrations. The documents leaked by
Falciani included the complete internal records of more than 30,000
clients of this Swiss bank in 2006-07.
At the time of the leak, HSBC Switzerland was a major
actor in the offshore wealth management industry. It managed US$118.4bn –
about 4% of all the foreign wealth managed by Swiss banks. This is a
unique source of information through which to study tax evasion, because
the leak can be seen as a random event, and it comes from a large (and,
the available evidence suggests, representative) offshore bank.
We also made use of the Panama Papers, which last year revealed the identity of the shareholders of shell companies created by the Panamanian firm Mossack Fonseca.
Just as with HSBC, this leak is valuable as it can be seen as a random
event and involves a prominent provider of offshore financial services.
The Panama Papers, however, have one drawback: they do not allow us to
estimate how much tax was evaded (if any) by the owners of the Mossack
Fonseca shell companies. It is not illegal per se to own shell corporations in Panama or elsewhere.
We combined random audits with these new sources of
information to shed light on who really evades taxes in Denmark, Norway
and Sweden – and the results are striking.
The higher one moves up the wealth distribution, the
higher the probability of hiding assets. Scandinavian households in the
top 0.01% of the wealth pyramid – the ultra-rich, who own more than $40m
in net wealth each – are 250 times more likely than average to hide
assets. Furthermore, the ultra-rich HSBC customers had considerably more
wealth in their accounts than other customers – so although they were
very few in number, they owned around half of all the wealth hidden at
HSBC.
This pattern is not specific to HSBC or the Panama Papers.
Over the last few years, thousands of Norwegians and Swedes have
voluntarily declared previously hidden assets under a tax amnesty. Here
again, the super-rich are found to own half of the total amount of
offshore wealth.
So what are the consequences for inequality? At the
very top of the pyramid, it is much greater than previously estimated.
In Norway, where the available wealth data is particularly detailed,
the super-wealthy appear to be 30% wealthier than previously thought,
when all the wealth hidden in tax havens is taken into account. The
share of wealth owned by the top 0.1% increases from 8% to 10%.
Since Scandinavians generally pay their taxes and hide
little wealth in total, our results are likely to be even stronger in
Great Britain and elsewhere. A more accurate measurement of tax evasion
would likely increase inequality levels even more than in Scandinavia.
These results underscore a basic truth: in a world
where wealth is globalised and where a big industry has specialised in
helping the ultra-rich avoid and sometimes evade their taxes, our
ability to track great fortunes – and to tax them appropriately – faces
considerable challenges.
But does this mean nothing can be done? Not at all.
It is possible to collect much better information on
wealth and its distribution. Progress has already started in this area,
as a number of tax havens have agreed to automatically exchange bank
information with foreign countries’ tax authorities – a major evolution
since the time of the HSBC leak.
But this policy faces an obvious issue: what are the
incentives for offshore bankers to provide truthful information? After
all, these are the same people who for decades have been hiding their
clients behind shell companies, and sometimes even smuggling diamonds in toothpaste tubes or handing out bank statements concealed in sports magazines
– all of this in violation of the law and the banks’ stated policies.
Yet it still should be possible to secure their cooperation, if they
face stiff enough sanctions for non-compliance.
More broadly, the key to successfully fighting tax
evasion is to change the incentives for the providers of wealth
concealment services. Over the last few years, a number of banks have
pleaded guilty in the US to criminal conspiracies to defraud the
Internal Revenue Service – yet they were able to keep their banking
licences, and the fines they had to pay paled in comparison to their
profits. A more ambitious approach would put criminal organisations out
of business. If tax evasion ceases to pay, it will disappear.
No comments:
Post a Comment