Summary
Michael Potter Article Summary
- Course
- Institution
Summary of text M.J. Potter (20 November 2014), Capital in the Twenty-First Century: A Critique of Thomas Piketty's Political Economy, Agenda, 21(1).
[Show more]
1 review
By: sylvia0101 • 4 year ago
Seller
Follow
taxgirl206
Reviews received
Content preview
Thomas Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Herein after referred to asCapital)
Basically this book deals with wealth inequality in Europe and US. Piketty
claims that inequality is rising in Europe and US and that the
governments should intervene and impose higher taxes for income,
wealth and inheritance for the rich.
Michael Potter, Capital in the Twenty-First Century: A Critique of Thomas
Piketty’s Political Economy
Outline:
It turns out that Pikettys analysis might be seriously fawed, due to the
data that he gathered, i.e he uses data that is not adequate for the task
and furthermore he interprets it dogmatically to ft his narrative.
Moreover, Pikettys solutions are questionable as well, as they include
measures that echo rampant marxism.
Potter critically analyzis the methodology and conclusions drawn by
Piketty in his book Capital. The paper examines 1. Piketty’s data; 2. his
explanation of the data; 3. the signifcance he attributes to this data; and
4. his remedy for the supposed problems.
A critical examination of the inequality data:
Pikettys analysis on wealth is largely based on data from tax returns, which is
not accurate, because It:
a) leaves out income support and government transfers;
Omitting this factor is misleading.
Example: When welfare income is included, the (disposable) income of the
bottom 90 per cent in the US rose nearly $12,000 between 1979 and 2012,
whereas Piketty’s data has this income dropping by $3,000.
Example: Piketty ignores public pensions in his calculations, but does include
private pensions. This is misleading.
b) incorrectly measures capital gains;
Piketty’s tax returr aata i clurae caiital gai s as i come i tee tear i heice assets are solah
A beter measurre of i come i cluraes caiital gai s hee teet accrure rateer tea hee teet
are realisedh
c) omits non-taxable income entirely;
, Piketty omits e.g public health care and other government provided benefts
in kind
d) is sensitive to changes in the defnitions of taxable income.
Pikettys use of tax returns as a measure of wealth has a fundamental
faw, which is the fact that tax returns may vary due to changes in laws
and not only due to the increase of wealth.
Different conclusions reached by others (copy pasted from the text):
. The share of disposable income after taxes and welfare payments going
to the top 1 per cent was around the same level in 1987/88, 1996, 2001
and 2009 (Kaplan and Rauh 2013).
. Globally, income inequality (measured by the Gini coefcient1) fell
slightly from 1988 to 2008, including when Piketty’s concerns about
correct measurement of top incomes are addressed. Thus, the apparent
increase in inequality is occurring within countries rather than across the
globe and could be seen as an artefact of where country boundaries are
drawn.
. Data from the Congressional Budget O ce show that from 1980 to 2010,
incomes for the poorest ffth of Americans rose by 44 per cent in real
terms before tax, or 53 per cent after tax (Samuelson 2014) – this is
signifcantly greater than the change in Piketty’s data.
. Household income inequality after tax (measured by the Gini coefcient)
did not increase from 1986 to 2010; this result is in a report otherwise
raising concerns with inequality (Lorenzetti 2014).
. The data from estate taxes show no increase in wealth inequality over
the past 30 years, similar to results from surveys by the US Federal
Reserve (Kopczuk and Schrager 2014).
. The latest data show there has been no increase in the share of wealth
owned by the rich, outside the top 0.1 per cent, since 1960 (Saez and
Zucman 2014: 3). Piketty himself indicates this data set is more up to
date and reliable than the data in Capital (Piketty 2014b). Even the
increase for the top 0.1 per cent has been called into question (Reynolds
2014).
For Australia:
• Incomes at the lowest end grew at a strong rate from 1988/89 to 2009/10
(Greenville, Pobke and Rogers 2013: 62).
1
A measurre of statstcal aisiersio i te aea to reirese t tee i come or healte aistriburto of a
ato 's resiae ts a a is tee most commo lt ursea measurre of i equralitth
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller taxgirl206. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $4.01. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
76669 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now