View previous stories
	Why multinationals should pay their fair share of Taxes by Magdalena Sepulveda Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT)   Jan. 2020   Fix the global tax system to fix the inequality crisis. (ICRICT)   The inequality crisis remains unaddressed and out of control. Hundreds of millions of people are living in extreme poverty while large rewards go to those at the very top. In 2019, the world's billionaires, only 2,153 people, had more wealth than the poorest 4.6 billion people combined, according to Oxfam. A new generation of inequalities is opening up, around education, technology and climate change.   The demonstrations that swept across the world last year signal a global revolt against extreme inequality and the poor living standards for a large amount of the world's population. Faced with popular demands, governments excuse themselves by arguing that their coffers are empty and implementing austerity program. These measures only aggravate economic, social, gender and racial disparities, depriving people of access to health care, education, or housing, especially in developing countries.   Inequality is not beyond solutions. One of the most obvious is to change the international corporate taxation system, which is not only obsolete, but also unfair, since it allows for systematic tax evasion and avoidance by multinationals. Corporate taxation is one of the most important tools in addressing inequality.   Tax evasion and avoidance by multinationals further increases income inequality, as corporate equity mostly belongs directly or indirectly (e.g. through investment funds) to wealthy individuals who receive profit income through dividends and capital gains.   Magdalena Sepulveda, Executive Director of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and ICRICT commissioner: 'If multinationals - and the super-rich - do not pay their fair share of taxes, governments cannot invest in access to education, health care, and decent pensions, or take measures to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis.   The impact is even greater for developing countries, as they rely more on corporate taxes. Furthermore, the tax burden is shifted to the poorest, usually through taxes regressive to consumption, such as value-added tax (VAT)'.   'It is incumbent on all of us to make a clear commitment to the issue of international taxation, no longer considering it as a technical issue to be discussed behind closed doors. We must work collectively to put the interests of the majority of citizens above the often-unreasonable profits of a small group of shareholders'. http://bit.ly/37dQlgD   http://www.icrict.com/ http://www.taxjustice.net/topics/ http://www.globaltaxjustice.org/en   * UNRISD: Overcoming Inequalities; Elites influence over policy making: http://bit.ly/2RwtK8C   Why multinationals should pay their fair share of Taxes, by Magdalena Sepulveda.   Will 2020 be as explosive as the year that is coming to an end? This is the anxiety that embraces governments around the world, still destabilized by massive and unexpected popular uprisings.   In Chile, where I come from, but also in Ecuador, Venezuela, Bolivia, France, Iraq, Lebanon, and Egypt, among others, we have seen millions of people invade the streets this year, paralyzing all activities in their countries. The contexts are different, but everywhere we can see the echoes of a global revolt against extreme inequalities and the degradation of living standards.   Ironically, on 10 December 1948 - 71 years ago - all these countries enthusiastically supported the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. According to this document, which remains visionary, they committed themselves to respecting not only civil and political rights (e.g. the rights to life, freedom of expression and religion), but also economic, social and cultural rights (e.g. to equitable and adequate remuneration, periodic paid holidays, and access to education, health care, and necessary social services).   All rights that are increasingly being violated in an increasingly unequal world. Last year, according to Oxfam, 82% of global wealth generated went to the richest 1% of the world's population, while the poorest 50% - 3.7 billion people - did not benefit from this growth in the least.   Faced with popular demands, discredited governments excuse themselves by arguing that their coffers are empty. They tell us that they are forced to take austerity measures, they want to convince us that they do not have the money to finance quality public services, that they lack the means to provide their elderly with decent pensions, and that they cannot cope with the climate crisis.   However, the evidence shows that austerity measures are not the solution. They only aggravate gender and racial disparities, plunge people into and keep them in poverty, and deprive them of access to health care, education, or housing.   Citizens in the streets demand a progressive increase in tax revenues in order to provide the population with the goods and services necessary for a dignified life.   There are several public policy options that would allow even the poorest countries to increase their fiscal coffers. Within those solutions, it becomes more imperative for countries to change the international tax system, which is not only obsolete, but also unfair.   The current system allows for systematic tax evasion by multinationals. They can declare their profits in the countries of their choice by manipulating transactions between their subsidiaries.   In this way, they are able to be loss-making where taxes are high - even if it is in these countries where they generate more economic activity - and to declare high profits in jurisdictions where taxes are very low or even nil - even though they do not actually produce or have any clients there.   This is no small problem. For example, in the United States, 60 of the 500 largest companies, including Amazon, Netflix, and General Motors, did not pay any taxes in 2018, despite an accumulated profit of US $79 billion.   Developing countries are thus deprived of at least US $100 billion annually, which is diverted to tax havens. This sum is greater than all the money spent by rich countries on development assistance.   If multinationals - and the super-rich - do not pay their fair share of taxes, governments cannot invest in access to education, health care, and decent pensions, or take measures to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. The impact is even greater for developing countries, as they rely more on corporate taxes. They account for 15% of total tax revenues in Africa and Latin America, compared to 9% in rich countries.   Furthermore, the tax burden is shifted to the poorest, usually through taxes regressive to consumption, such as value-added tax (VAT).   This is what recently led the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to pronounce itself for the first time in favour of a change in international tax rules.   However, as we have pointed out at ICRICT - an international tax reform commission of which I am a part - its proposal is neither ambitious nor fair enough. OECD wants to distribute only a very limited part of international taxes, and according to criteria that will benefit the rich countries first and foremost, at the expense of the others.   It is therefore imperative that the governments of developing countries mobilize.. If some governments have not yet understood the importance of the issues at stake, it is we, organized civil society and ordinary citizens, who must intervene to put pressure on our governments.   On this International Human Rights Day, it is incumbent on all of us to make a clear commitment to the issue of international taxation, no longer considering it as a technical issue to be discussed behind closed doors.   We must work collectively to put the interests of the majority of citizens above the often unreasonable profits of a small group of shareholders. From Santiago to Beirut, the streets remind us: the fight for human rights is also the fight for a dignified life, without the fear of hunger and poverty.   * Magdalena Sepulveda is a member of the Independent Commission for the Reform of International Corporate Taxation (ICRICT). Previously, she was the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights.   Jan. 2020   The world's 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than the 4.6 billion people who make up 60 percent of the planet's population, reveals a new report from Oxfam.   Global inequality is shockingly entrenched and vast and the number of billionaires has doubled in the last decade. Oxfam India CEO Amitabh Behar, who is in Davos to represent the Oxfam confederation this year said: 'The gap between rich and poor can't be resolved without deliberate inequality-busting policies, and too few governments are committed to these'.   Oxfam's report, 'Time to Care', shows how our sexist economies are fuelling the inequality crisis - enabling a wealthy elite to accumulate vast fortunes at the expense of ordinary people and particularly poor women and girls:   The 22 richest men in the world have more wealth than all the women in Africa. Women and girls put in 12.5 billion hours of unpaid care work each and every day - a contribution to the global economy of at least $10.8 trillion a year, more than three times the size of the global tech industry.   Getting the richest one percent to pay just 0.5 percent extra tax on their wealth over the next 10 years would equal the investment needed to create 117 million jobs in sectors such as elderly and childcare, education and health.   'Our broken economies are lining the pockets of billionaires and big business at the expense of ordinary men and women. No wonder people are starting to question whether billionaires should even exist', Behar said.   'Women and girls are among those who benefit least from today's economic system. They spend billions of hours cooking, cleaning and caring for children and the elderly. Unpaid care work is the 'hidden engin' that keeps the wheels of our economies, businesses and societies moving. It is driven by women who often have little time to get an education, earn a decent living or have a say in how our societies are run, and who are therefore trapped at the bottom of the economy', added Behar.   Women do more than three-quarters of all unpaid care work. They often have to work reduced hours or drop out of the workforce because of their care workload. Across the globe, 42 percent of women of working age cannot get jobs because they are responsible for all the caregiving, compared to just six percent of men.   Women also make up two-thirds of the paid 'care workforce'. Jobs such as nursery workers, domestic workers, and care assistants are often poorly paid, provide scant benefits, impose irregular hours, and can take a physical and emotional toll.   The pressure on carers, both unpaid and paid, is set to grow in the coming decade as the global population grows and age. An estimated 2.3 billion people will be in need of care by 2030 - an increase of 200 million since 2015.   Climate change will worsen the looming global care crisis, by 2025, up to 2.4 billion people will live in areas without enough water, and women and girls will have to walk even longer distances to fetch it.   The report shows governments are massively under-taxing the wealthiest individuals and corporations and failing to collect revenues that could help lift the responsibility of care from women and tackle poverty and inequality.   At the same time, governments are underfunding vital public services and infrastructure that could help reduce women and girls workload. For example, investments in water and sanitation, electricity, childcare, healthcare could free up women's time and improve their quality of life.   For example, providing access to an improved water source could save women in parts of Zimbabwe up to four hours of work a day, or two months a year.   'Governments created the inequality crisis they must act now to end it. They must ensure corporations and wealthy individuals pay their fair share of tax and increase investment in public services and infrastructure. They must pass laws to tackle the huge amount of care work done by women and girls, and ensure that people who do some of the most important jobs in our society - caring for our parents, our children and the most vulnerable are paid a living wage.   Governments must prioritize care as being as important as all other sectors in order to build more human economies that work for everyone, not just a fortunate few', said Behar.   http://indepth.oxfam.org.uk/time-to-care/ http://indepth.oxfam.org.uk/time-to-care/learn-more/ http://www.globaltaxjustice.org/en/action/make-taxes-work-for-women http://actionaid.org/publications/2020/who-cares-future-finance-gender-responsive-public-services Visit the related web page
	Economic rights are human rights by Neeti Biyani International Politics & Society   Perhaps one of the most systemic crises that our time and age will be remembered for is inequality. The ugliness perpetrated by the neoliberal paradigm encompasses the roots of escalating inequality in the last few decades - erosion of labour rights; stagnation of wages and decline of collective bargaining; undermined public services and social protection systems; biased legal frameworks that facilitate astronomically high returns to private capital; regressive fiscal policy skewed towards the rich; economic policies that feminise poverty; and an anti-democratic capture of decision-making by the global elite.   Rising inequalities are both a cause and consequence of human rights violations. Systemic human rights violations drive inequality in as much as unequal societies cause further human rights deprivations. Voices championing human rights have long argued that inequality (and by extension the neoliberal model) is the antithesis of human rights.   The human rights framework has recognised horizontal inequality and has strongly incorporated issues of non-discrimination and equality of opportunity between culturally or socially constructed groups based on gender, race, ethnicity, caste, religion, sexuality etc.   However, the framework has thus far been hesitant on matters of vertical inequality, such as income and wealth distribution, the need for redistribution and the increasing polarisation of our societies.   The distinction between horizontal and vertical inequality, to begin with, is highly misleading - in reality, income and wealth inequality produce inequalities in distribution of power. Skewed distribution of income and wealth results in a disproportionate accumulation of power by elites, in effect compromising a range of human rights.   For instance, the rich are more likely to resist progressive tax systems, exploit tax avoidance schemes and mechanisms, and support inequity in the global financial system, robbing countries across the world from financing the full realisation of human rights.   Socio-economic rights are human rights   The Universal Declaration of Human Rights envisaged no distinction between civil and political rights on one hand, and economic, social and cultural rights on the other by recognising 'the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family'. Civil and political rights protect individuals freedom from infringement by the government and private individuals, all the while ensuring people's entitlement to participate in the civil and political life of state and society without discrimination and repression. Economic, social and cultural rights are socio-economic rights, including rights to adequate food, housing, education, health, social security, work, and a right to a cultural life.   However, escalating Cold War tensions between the market economies of the West which placed a higher value on civil and political rights, and the planned economies of the Eastern bloc which emphasised economic, social and cultural rights, led to two separate Covenants being negotiated and adopted the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).   Most countries have gone on to accord constitutional or legal status to civil and political rights, while economic, social and cultural rights have been systemically marginalised, constitutionally and legally unrecognised and are inadequately funded.   While the aspiration and approach behind the actualisation of human rights assumed the indivisibility of all rights, the international human rights system perceptibly marginalises economic, social and cultural rights by tolerating a situation where a majority of states avoid any recognition of such rights, actively reject legal and constitutional proposals to recognise such rights, and even vote against proposals calling for a democratic and equitable international order that would foster the realisation of human rights for all.   Most national and multilateral negotiations, efforts and indicators of success are themselves founded in the neoliberal ideology 'lifting' people out of extreme poverty and putting in place threadbare socio-economic provision and protection measures that carry no guarantee of the liberty, equality and dignity enshrined in human rights treatises.   Perhaps the most perverse form that the marginalisation of economic, social and cultural rights takes, is how often such rights go unacknowledged as human rights and are instead included in jingoistic narratives on development. States and policymakers speak of development and welfare schemes as if they are synonymous with economic, social and cultural rights, whereas diverse models and experiences of development have amply clarified that development need not necessarily protect or help realise human rights, and can even benefit only a certain group of people.   Inequality is injustice   Even the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) the world's 2030 development agenda meant to realise human rights for all lack ambition in their endeavour to tackle inequality. Goal 10 of the SDGs, despite committing to reducing inequality within and among countries, does not mandate a thematic body or institution at the national or international level responsible and accountable for funding, driving action and monitoring progress on the issue.   Further, Goal 10 ignores the top of the distribution ladder - the rich - by not measuring the income of the poorest 40 per cent of the population against the income of the richest 10 per cent. The SDGs therefore take the position that the wealth of those at the top is unimportant as long as the people at the bottom rungs of income distribution see improvement.   By having an inequality target that does not take the rich into account, the SDGs allow for greater concentration of income at the top despite substantial research to prove that top incomes and concentration of wealth in the hands of a few drive inequality.   The SDGs also do not specify the targeted level of growth in the incomes of the poor (rather, simply any growth above the national average), thus rendering it extremely weak.   There is a lot to be done on part of states and the international community at large to meaningfully address inequality. Establishing higher taxes for higher levels of income, taxes on wealth and inheritance, rationalising harmful tax incentives, recognising the abrasive impacts of tax abuse and meaningful international cooperation on tax are some of the key fiscal policy measures that can drive redistribution. Legislating in favour of strong labour laws and environmental impact assessments will also aid in addressing inequality.   Furthermore, there is a need to accord legal recognition and justiciable status to economic, social and cultural rights, with legally binding commitments from states regarding their national budgetary allocations towards these rights.   Inequality does not simply threaten the realisation of human rights for instrumental reasons. It is only with the recognition of inequality as injustice and the consideration of equality as intrinsic to the human rights movement can we hope to realise human rights as a countervailing force against a hitherto unfair, undemocratic socio-economic system that has perpetuated the intersecting, multidimensional, self-reinforcing and cumulative inequality we witness today. Visit the related web page
	View more stories