maedros78

Очень интересная работа

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~saez/piketty-saez-stantchevaAEJ14.pdf

Люблю я Пикетти. Он не один на эту тему мягко говоря пишет. Все возбудились, потому что Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez недавно про 70% ставку подоходного налога заикнулась. Ну так она не одна такая, есть несколько авторитетных работа, которые для США к этой цифре как оптимальной приходят. Это — одна из них.

While there have been many discussions both in the academic literature and the public debate about the causes of the surge in top incomes, there is not a fully compelling explanation. Most explanations can be classified into market-driven changes versus institution-driven changes. The market-driven stories posit that technological progress and globalization have been skill-biased and have favored top earners relative to average earners (see, e.g., Gabaix and Landier 2008 for CEOs and Rosen 1981 for winner-take-all theories for superstars). Those pure market explanations cannot account for the fact that top income shares have only increased modestly in a number of advanced countries (including Japan, Germany, or France) which are also subject to the same technological forces. The institution-driven stories posit that changes in institutions, defined to include labor and financial market regulations, union policies, tax policy, and more broadly social norms regarding pay disparity, have played a key role in the evolution of inequality. The main difficulty is that “institutions” are multidimensional and it is difficult to estimate compellingly the contribution of each specific factor

Error

default userpic

Your reply will be screened

When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.