No sorry. "we lack robust figures" is not an excuse to bait-and-switch the countries to which the estimates relate $s which relates to China, India, Brazil Turkey etc.. cannot be the answer to education funding gap in "low income countries" because they are not the same countries
-
-
Replying to @MForstater @JohanLangerock
We DO have robust definitions for the countries that these estimates relate to. It is not a 'conservative' to mix and match them based on wishful thinking (and I don't think the $100 bn estimate is conservative, certainly i'd be careful with the IMF one https://www.cgdev.org/blog/how-big-transfer-pricing-prize-development …)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
It is not wishful thinking. There is a difference between putting things in perspective and concrete policy recommendations. At country-level we give specific tax recommendations based on for example our Fair Tax Monitor reports.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JohanLangerock
Wishful thinking was being charitable! What justifies presenting a revenue related estimate that mainly relates to major emerging economies as if it is somehow relevant to filling a funding gap for low income countries?pic.twitter.com/0ZJYkaOgOy
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @JohanLangerock
Promoting the idea that there are pottentially $100bns for low income countries from MNC tax dodging by putting estimates from major economies alongside pictures from Nicaragua, Malawi, South Sudan is not 'putting them in perspective' it is misleadingpic.twitter.com/31tmQM17Pz
1 reply 2 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @JohanLangerock
These are schools in the countries where the rough estimates of international corporate tax avoidance (i.e. potential related to the underlying scale of FDI) relate. https://widerimage.reuters.com/story/schools-around-the-world …pic.twitter.com/wNPDBS1O2L
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater
Personally, I agree the 100billion was not well put in this report specifically. On the other hand, it is just mentioned once. Literally one sentence. So undermining a whole report just for that is exaggerated.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @JohanLangerock
I haven't commented on rest of report. I'll leave that to education researchers, I commented on tax bit, because that's the bit I know. Education people would probably not notice, take it on good faith. it undermines the credibility of the whole work to allow such exaggeration
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MForstater @JohanLangerock
And the misrepresentation of the 100bn in the report is not a one-off. This is a pattern . I've been pointing it out since 2015 !https://www.cgdev.org/publication/can-stopping-tax-dodging-multinational-enterprises-close-gap-development-finance …
@maxlawsontin1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
iain campbell Retweeted iain campbell
And scale of potential "ask" seems to dwarf the potential source of funding. Or am I misreading the paper?https://twitter.com/iaincampbell07/status/1174943964643770370?s=19 …
iain campbell added,
iain campbell @iaincampbell07Replying to @MForstater @JohanLangerockAnd not sure the maths add up. Says 6% GDP needed; $340bn, of which $40bn from aid. Implies +tax of $300bn, or 5.3% of GDP. Per OECD CT for developing countries was on average 3% of GDP in 2016. https://www.oecd.org/tax/corporate-tax-remains-a-key-revenue-source-despite-falling-rates-worldwide.htm … pic.twitter.com/YZVRhyx0Sv1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Absolutely.
7:16 AM - 20 Sep 2019
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.