Search the archive.

Another school of thought makes the opposite prediction: Global warming might actually lead to another ice age. According to this theory, warming temperatures disrupt ocean currents -- particularly the Gulf Stream, the flow that redistributes warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Europe. As the Gulf Stream makes its deposits of warm water along the coasts of Great Britain and northwestern Europe, it keeps the temperatures there warmer than they would be otherwise.

The worry is that, when Arctic ice melts as a result of global warming, huge amounts of fresh water will pour into the North Atlantic and slow down the Gulf Stream. A study of circulation in the North Atlantic has discovered that there already has been a 30 percent reduction in currents flowing north from the Gulf Stream [source: Pearce]. A slowed Gulf Stream could potentially lead to dramatic cooling in Europe.

Last summer, Uyen Le, owner and chef at Be U Vietnamese Street Food in East Hollywood, was scraping out her Sriracha bottles and trying to ration her supply. Huy Fong Foods had announced a shortage of the red chile peppers it uses to make the sauce, and the world was taking notice. One of her employees suggested asking the public for help. Be U offered free meals in exchange for Huy Fong Sriracha sauce, and it got around 300 bottles during the promotion. A year later, the restaurant still has about 100 bottles left. “I was always aware of supply chain issues related to climate change, and I understood that it’s something you have to adapt to. It’s the reality we have to live with,” Le said. “When we heard about the last shortage, we stocked up. I was like, ‘Oh my goodness, is this too much?’ But it turned out to be prescient.” Now, heading into another summer, the world is a little more bland as the makers of the famous Sriracha hot sauce, with its iconic green cap and the rooster on the bottle, say they still don’t know when their supply will bounce back. In the Bay Area, some desperate Sriracha lovers have taken to swiping bottles from Filipino restaurant chain Señor Sisig, SFGate reported. A single 28-ounce bottle was listed for $29.99 at an Asian grocery in Oakland this month, with a limit of two per customer. At 168 Market in Alhambra, dozens of imitation Huy Fong Sriracha bottles line the shelves, but the section reserved for Huy Fong Foods bottles is empty. A market manager said the hot sauce sells out within a day when the store gets a shipment, and customers are limited to one bottle. “A lot of people call looking for the Sriracha sauce,” said the manager, who did not give his name. “Everyone is acting polite. But we know that people want it all the time. It’s been this way for several months.” FILE - In this Oct 29, 2013 photo, Sriracha chili sauce is produced at the Huy Fong Foods factory in Irwindale, Calif. Bottles of the popular Sriracha hot sauce could be hard to find on store shelves this summer. Southern California-based Huy Fong Inc., told customers in an email earlier this year that it would suspend sales of its famous spicy sauce over the summer due to a shortage of chili peppers. (AP Photo/Nick Ut, File) CALIFORNIA Another Sriracha shortage is upon us. How long will it last? The situation is no better online, where virtually all Sriracha options are out of stock on Amazon. At one point, a two-pack of 17-ounce bottles was listed for over $160. Drought in Mexico is to blame for the shortages that have persisted for the last year, a phenomenon that experts warn will become much more common on a warming planet. For nearly 30 years, Huy Fong Foods — which goes through about 50,000 tons of chiles a year to make its Sriracha, chile-garlic sauce and sambal oelek — sourced all its peppers from Ventura County’s Underwood Ranches, until the parties parted ways over a bitter contract dispute that led to a multimillion-dollar judgment in favor of Underwood in 2019. Huy Fong now sources its chiles from multiple suppliers throughout Mexico, where severe drought conditions have curtailed crops and led to water shortages in many cities and towns. In a statement, the Irwindale company said it is “still experiencing a shortage of raw material” and has no estimate when supplies will return. It produced some Sriracha in the fall, but output was limited. Although Huy Fong Foods said it is working to avoid a repeat, future shortages in food supplies are all but assured with the current amount of water used in the United States, said Gary Nabhan, an agricultural ecologist and professor emeritus at the University of Arizona. Large swaths of Mexico receive water from the Colorado River, but U.S. farms have first right to that water. For years, farmers have been growing their produce with diminishing water supplies, but it’s come to the point where the methods to grow those crops have to adapt to a changing landscape, according to a recent study authored by Nabhan. Jalapeño peppers require less than half the amount of water it takes to grow alfalfa or pecans, but drought and competition from water-hungry crops upstream still shrink harvests, Nabhan said. A satellite view of the Sierra Nevada covered in snow CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT Where will all that snow go? Here’s what California’s “Big Melt” looks like June 8, 2023 “Climate change is the ultimate driver, but it’s also how we manage the water equitably,” Nabhan said. “Any politician is going to be reluctant to allocate less water, but we’re not asking farmers to transition to more efficient irrigation techniques.” The United States is the top importer of Mexico’s agricultural products, increasing 14% last year to a record high of $44.2 billion, according to the U.S. Census Bureau and the Mexican government. Chile peppers thrive in arid climates, and Mexican states such as Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Michoacán are some of the top producers, according to Mexico’s Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development. But Mexico is gripped by a searing heat wave, and large swaths of the country are in a drought, according to the Mexican government’s latest drought monitor report. While shortages of chile peppers used in Sriracha hot sauce grab the public’s attention, other harvests are suffering as well because of the drought, said Shon Hiatt, an associate professor at USC’s Marshall School of Business who focuses on global energy and agriculture. Kansas, one of the largest sources of hard red winter wheat, is projected to have a historically weak crop this year because of drought conditions, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Right now we’re seeing the droughts hit right straight up the Midwest. If you were to draw a line from Texas, from Mexico, just go straight north, all the way up through to Minnesota and the Dakotas,” Hiatt said. Kim Gallagher stands in a rice field she's fallowed due to a lack of water in Knights Landing, California, August 3, 2021. CLIMATE & ENVIRONMENT ‘It’s a disaster.’ Drought dramatically shrinking California farmland, costing $1.7 billion Nov. 23, 2022 The drought’s disruption to Huy Fong Foods’ supply chain is similar to the broader situation that gripped the U.S. in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic. During those first few months, manufacturers couldn’t produce items such as ibuprofen or electronics because core components came from overseas. “We realized, ‘Oh gosh, we are strongly susceptible to supply chain shocks, because we purchase everything from China and Southeast Asia. We don’t make anything here,’” Hiatt said. “It’s the same thing we’re seeing in agriculture.” Huy Fong Foods declined an interview request and said in a statement that it couldn’t specify which markets will receive more of its products. Some people can’t wait, so they’re making their own sauce. Kristin Nguyen, chef and owner at Garlic and Chives, a Michelin-recommended Asian fusion restaurant in Garden Grove’s Little Saigon, didn’t think about the cost of Sriracha sauce before the shortage. But the average bottles are now sold at a premium. “I put it in a lot of my sauces, but I didn’t want to pass on the costs to my customers and I don’t want to sacrifice taste,” Nguyen said. “I put my whole heart and soul into anything I create.” The labor and supplies to make her own Sriracha sauce are costly, Nguyen said. It takes about 10 pounds of red jalapeños, which can sell for up to $8 a pound. There’s also the cost of vinegar, sugar and other ingredients, plus the whole process requires time to ferment. Before the Sriracha shortage, Nguyen would just reach for a bottle of Huy Fong. “It really does affect me, because it takes away time from other things I could be doing for my businesses,” Nguyen said. She thinks that her Sriracha is close to the classic taste of Huy Fong’s and said she can work around the problem. “If [Huy Fong] wants to brainstorm on some ideas for substitutes,” she said, “we can crack the code.”

These days, UPS driver Barkley Wimpee prepares for his daily route out of Rome, Ga., with the precision of a battlefield commander. He loads up his cooler with ice, and stocks it with sandwiches, a case of water bottles, and a couple of sports drinks. He girds himself with a bandana and some plastic bags: around midday, when the sun is at its height, he will soak the bandana in ice water and wrap it around his head, Rambo style—UPS’s strict appearance rules notwithstanding. Midafternoon, when the day’s accumulated heat blasts out of the back of his non-air conditioned delivery truck like an oven with the door open, he will take off his shoes, slip his feet into the plastic bags and plunge them into the puddling ice of his cooler for a few moments of respite. On really bad days, he will dunk his head in as well. He has surveyed his route’s restaurants, and he already knows which ones will welcome him with a blast of air conditioning and a glass of ice water—by the time he gets there, he has already downed all his drinks, and his cooler’s contents will have become a tepid soup. UPS driver Barkley Wimpee, 28, collapsed with heat stroke last summer while on his Georgia deliver route. Air conditioning the delivery vehicles should be a no brainer, he says. (José Ibarra Rizo for TIME) Working all day in heat like this, he says from behind the wheel of his truck on a recent 100°F morning, “is physically painful. When your body starts to heat up, you don’t feel right.” As weeks-long, triple-digit heat waves smother the southern U.S. from California to Florida, not feeling right is starting to feel normal for Wimpee, 28. And it’s only going to get worse. “There’s no question that the globe is heating up,” he says. “Summers are getting hotter. Our [work] days are getting longer. I’m thankful that I have a job, but it’s an untenable situation that we’re in right now with the rising heat.” Wimpee is not alone. Across the U.S., UPS drivers are braving one of the most immediate aspects of climate change: longer, more intense heat waves that make working long hours in wheeled ovens not just uncomfortable, but dangerous. Last summer, Wimpee succumbed to heat stroke midway through his route. He spent the night in the hospital, where he was diagnosed with severe kidney injury caused by heat. On June 25, 2022, Esteban Chavez, 24, died of suspected heat stroke while delivering packages in Pasadena, Calif., on a day that saw temperatures in the high 90s. A few weeks later another UPS driver collapsed on a customer’s doorstep in Arizona when the temperature hit 110°F. More than 143 UPS employees have been hospitalized for heat injuries between 2015 and 2022, according to company records submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration obtained by the Washington Post. Still, UPS refused to air-condition their familiar dark brown trucks. Doing so, said company spokespeople, was impractical given that drivers were constantly jumping in and out of the vehicles to make their deliveries. On June 16, UPS’s 340,000 Teamsters union members voted to strike starting August 1, unless their demands for improved working conditions, including air-conditioned vehicles and company-provided ice for coolers at the cargo centers, were included in a new, five-year contract. While climate change was not specifically cited in the union demands, UPS’s unwillingness to adapt to the new realities of global warming by providing its employees with heat-adaptation strategies formed the subtext of the campaign. Before contract negotiations collapsed on July 5, with both sides trading accusations that the other had walked away from the table, the company had tentatively agreed to equip all new vehicles in its 94,000-strong fleet with air conditioning systems, new heat shields, and additional fans, starting in 2024. While union members are still holding out for more breaks and shorter working days during high heat periods (shifts can last 10-12 hours, six days a week, depriving drivers of essential recovery time), it’s a good start, says Wimpee. “Hopefully, after these negotiations UPS will take the exposure to the heat seriously. And deal with it differently.” But if negotiations aren’t resumed immediately, the union will likely launch one of the largest strikes in U.S. history, putting millions of daily deliveries at risk starting next month. UPS workers and Teamsters members during a rally outside a UPS hub in the Brooklyn borough of New York, US, on Friday, April 21, 2023. (Paul Frangipane—Bloomberg/Getty Images) UPS workers and Teamsters members during a rally outside a UPS hub in the Brooklyn borough of New York, US, on Friday, April 21, 2023. Paul Frangipane—Bloomberg/Getty Images Whatever happens with the strike, the new vehicles can’t come fast enough, says Larry McBride, a 46-year-old UPS driver based in Phoenix, Ariz., who was hospitalized last summer for heat stroke and severe kidney injury after a day delivering packages in 100°F weather. The biggest problem isn’t the cab, but the uninsulated cargo hold which, after a day absorbing heat from the sun, can reach up to 150°F. Drivers spend most of their time in those holds, shifting and selecting the packages they need for delivery. “Before you realize it you start getting disoriented, lightheaded, like you might pass out,” he says. “When you step outside, even if it’s 115° out, you will feel like you got blasted with AC because it’s so hot back there.” With more than half a million full- and part-time-workers, UPS is one of the biggest employers in the U.S.. While it was poised to be the first major American company to include climate-adaptation provisions in its employment contract (before the negotiations failed), it certainly won’t be the last. As the dangers of working outside increase, either because of heat waves, wildfires, or extreme weather, companies will have to provide better conditions for their employees, either by foresight, or force. In Palmdale, Calif., a 2022 heat wave triggered a union push among Amazon delivery drivers. In its latest contract with the United Farm Workers, California wine industry giant E. & J. Gallo just agreed to add hazard pay for grape pickers laboring through climate change-fueled wildfire conditions. Meanwhile, in Europe, the International Trade Union Confederation is proposing that heat stress be integrated in collective bargaining agreements while ensuring that unemployment benefits cover loss of working hours due to heat stress and floods. Juanita Constible, the senior climate and health advocate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, sees these developments as a welcome correction to the notion that climate concerns are mainly an elite preoccupation. A just transition doesn’t just mean green jobs for workers pushed out of polluting industries, she says. It also means protecting those workers from the inevitable consequences of a warming world. “There are many groups that are trying to elevate the issue of worker safety in a climate change context. So I’m hopeful that as we see workers realizing their collective power, it will force a change.”

Many Fruits, Vegetables and Nuts will No Longer be Available.

Back to locking at the global food supply. One hundred crops that supply 70% of the world's food supply, are pollinated by bees. Without bees helping to produce these crops, supermarkets would have tremendous trouble filling the produce section. If you could find fruits and vegetables, they would be very expensive. Everyday items today would turn into luxury items. The next time you go to a grocery store and pass through the fruit and vegetable section, imagine every third item being gone. That's the magnitude of this loss to our diet and nutrition. Globally, pollination by bees accounts for 235-577 billion dollars in annual food production sales.

President Joe Biden is telling the American people that the economy is in better shape than they think. As inflation starts to fade, some on Wall Street are starting to believe it. Leading economists at big banks like Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have lowered their odds of an imminent recession, pointing to a resilient labor market and steady household finances as signs that the U.S. can weather the storm as the Federal Reserve continues to drive up borrowing costs. “The most anticipated recession in modern history may not come,” Jamie Cox, a managing partner at the advisory firm Harris Financial Group, said in an interview. The job market has started to soften without pushing up unemployment, Goldman’s chief U.S. economist David Mericle said on the bank’s podcast. There’s also growing confidence that the pressure banks felt following the failures of several regional lenders won’t cause a recessionary shock. “I feel better about the prospects for achieving a soft landing based on what we’ve seen so far,” Mericle said. That bodes well for Biden as his administration undertakes a nationwide messaging push to sell the public on his economic track record. President Joe Biden speaks. Biden gets a boost as GDP growth exceeds forecasts “I continue to believe that there is a path to reducing inflation while maintaining a healthy labor market,” Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in prepared remarks delivered in New Orleans last week. “Without downplaying the significant risks ahead, the evidence that we’ve seen so far suggests that we are on that path.” Yellen added that business executives she’s met with “have increasingly voiced confidence in our economy.” Still, despite low unemployment, wage growth and a relatively robust stock market, Americans have given the president dismal marks on economic policy. An Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll released last week found that barely a third of respondents approve of Biden’s leadership on economic matters. That reflects lingering frustration with elevated consumer prices that have eaten away at paychecks for more than a year, particularly in the service sector, which hasn’t been as sensitive to Fed rate hikes that are intended to bring down prices. The personal consumption index, the central bank’s preferred inflation gauge, on Friday showed that prices climbed in May by 3.8 percent — the slowest annual rate since April 2021 but still well above the Fed’s 2 percent target. Biden touts economic policy: 'Bidenomics is the future' Fed Chair Jerome Powell said he wouldn’t take two additional rate hikes at the central bank’s next two meetings “off the table.” There was little in the latest inflation print that would suggest he’ll change his mind. Core PCE — which measures inflation without food and energy prices — barely budged in May. Yet there are tangible signs that Wall Street’s confidence in the economy is starting to improve. The S&P 500 has climbed by more than 16 percent since the start of the year even as lenders warn of tighter credit conditions. Consumer confidence has started to improve and spending on new construction has risen. There are even signs of recovery in homebuilding, which could relieve pressure on rents and cool inflation. What’s more, many economists expect the Labor Department’s jobs report on Friday to show that the unemployment rate fell slightly in June to 3.6 percent with payrolls increasing by about 225,000 — a solid number but fewer than in most recent months. “Even if the unemployment rate went up a few tenths of a percent from here, the labor market would still be in very good shape relative to history,” Scott Wren, a senior global market strategist at the Wells Fargo Investment Institute, wrote in a research note. “U.S. consumers with money in their pockets tend to go out and spend it.” While yields on 10-year and 2-year Treasury yields remain inverted, which typically signals that a recession is coming, Bank of America rates strategist Meghan Swiber said that might actually reflect the market’s anticipation of inflation falling — rather than an economic downturn. “The market is of this view that the Fed will be cutting rates, not so much because we’re in a recession, but because inflation is normalizing,” she said.

AT FIRST GLANCE the world economy appears to have escaped from a tight spot. In the United States annual inflation has fallen to 4%, having approached double digits last year. A recession is nowhere in sight and the Federal Reserve has felt able to take a break from raising interest rates. After a gruesome 2022, stockmarkets have been celebrating: the s&p 500 index of American firms has risen by 14% so far this year, propelled by a resurgence in tech stocks. Only in Britain does inflation seem to be worryingly entrenched. The trouble is that the inflation monster has not truly been tamed. Britain's problem is the most acute. There, wages and "core" prices, which exclude energy and food, are rising by around 7%, year on year (see Britain section). But even as headline rates elsewhere have dropped as the energy shock has faded, core inflation has been frustratingly stubborn. In both America and the euro area it exceeds 5%, and has been high over the past year. Across the rich world many governments are adding fuel to the fire by running budget deficits of a scale typically seen during deep economic slumps. As a result, central banks face agonising choices. What they do next will reverberate across financial markets, threatening uncertainty and upheaval for workers, bosses and pensioners. Equity investors are hoping that central banks can return inflation to their 2% targets without inducing a recession. But history suggests that bringing inflation down will be painful. In Britain mortgage rates are surging, causing pain to aspiring and existing homeowners alike. Rarely has America's economy escaped unscathed as the Fed has raised rates. By one reckoning, the unemployment rate would have to rise to 6.5% for inflation to come down to the Fed's target, the equivalent of another 5 m people being out of work. Rising interest rates imperil financial stability in the euro area's most indebted member countries, notably Italy. Moreover, the secular forces pushing up inflation are likely to gather strength. Sabre-rattling between America and China is leading companies to replace efficient multinational supply chains with costlier local ones. The demands on the public purse to spend on everything from decarbonisation to defence will only intensify (see Free exchange). Central bankers vow that they are determined to meet their targets. They could, by raising rates, destroy enough demand to bring inflation down. Were they to keep their word, a recession would seem likelier than a painless disinflation. But the costs of inducing a recession, together with the longer term pressures on inflation, suggest another scenario: that central banks seek to evade their nightmarish trade-off, by raising rates less than is needed to hit their targets and instead living with higher inflation of, say, 3% or 4% (see Briefing). This approach would resemble the "opportunistic disinflation" espoused by some Fed governors in the late 1980s. Rather than deliberately inducing recessions to bring inflation down, they sought to do so passively, from cycle to cycle. Yet today's markets are not prepared for such tactics. The pricing of inflation-linked Treasuries, for instance, is consistent with average inflation expectations of 2.1% over the next five years, and 2.3% in the five years thereafter. A world of higher sustained inflation would therefore involve an epochal shift for financial markets. Unfortunately, it would be volatile, wrong-foot investors and pit winners against losers. One source of volatility could stem from the damage to central banks' reputations. In the decades since the 1980s they have trumpeted their commitment to targets. Yet over the past two years they have failed to anticipate the persistence of inflation. Should they then pay lip service to their unmet targets, they might no longer be taken at their word. In time they could lose the ability to guide the expectations of businesses and their workers. Those expectations could become unmoored and cause lurches in prices, inducing inflation to spiral. Volatile inflation would hurt companies, and their shares, by making it harder for them to manage their costs and set prices. It would hurt virtually every asset class by raising the likelihood that central banks would have to rush to adjust rates after an unexpected flare-up. That could bring large swings in real yields, prompting investors to demand a discount in compensation for the uncertainty, forcing asset prices down. The new regime could wrong-foot investors in other ways, too. Were central banks more lax, it would initially flatter the prices of short-term bonds and push down their yields. In time, as the system adjusted to higher inflation, nominal rates would rise to keep real interest rates constant; in anticipation, the price of long-term bonds would fall. Investors could rush into commodities, an inflation hedge. Yet a stampede into the tiny market for futures, which are easier to trade than physical barrels of oil, would risk a bubble. Higher inflation would also create new winners and losers. Most obviously, inflation involves an arbitrary transfer of wealth from lenders to borrowers, as the real value of debt falls. Heavily indebted borrowers, including governments around the world, may feel like rejoicing. But as bond investors realised they were being stiffed, they could punish recklessness with higher borrowing costs, including in rich countries. Sticker shock Other financial relationships could also become strained. If inflation was gobbling up four percentage points of returns each year, investors might start to look askance at fund managers' fees. Rising yields would improve the financial health of many defined-benefit pension schemes, by reducing the present value of their future liabilities. But benefits in retirement are not always fully protected from inflation, meaning that the purchasing power of some pensions will eventually be lower than expected. That would fuel voters' ire. Such is the excruciating situation that central banks now find themselves in. They are likely to steer a course between high inflation and recession. Investors seem to believe that this can still end well, but the chances are that it won't.

When the new Republican-controlled House passed a bill to cancel President Joe Biden ’s desired army of 87,000 new IRS agents, the administration reacted with a full-blown tantrum.

Vice President Kamala Harris released an angry statement that Republicans want to “allow … millionaires, billionaires, and corporations to cheat the system.”

The starting point of our analysis is the IRS random audit program, known as the National Research Program. Random audits are commonly used to study and measure the extent of tax evasion. Researchers use random audits to test theories of tax evasion (Kleven et al., 2011), and tax authorities use them to estimate the overall extent of tax evasion and target audits (IRS, 2019). The academic notion of the random audit as the gold standard for understanding tax evasion comes from the traditional appeal of random sampling, combined with the classic deterrence model of tax evasion (Allingham and Sandmo, 1972), an implicit assumption of which is that audits lead to the detection of all tax evasion. In the real world, however, random audits do not detect all forms of tax evasion. Random audits are well designed to detect common forms of tax evasion, such as unreported self-employment income, overstated deductions, and the abuse of tax credits. But, we argue, these audits may not detect sophisticated evasion strategies, because doing so can require much more information, resources and specialized staff than available to tax authorities for their random audit programs.

Our first contribution is to document and quantify the limits of random audits when it comes to detecting top-end evasion in the United States. We find that detected evasion declines sharply at the very top of the income distribution, with only a trivial amount of evasion detected in the top 0.01%. Our analysis uncovers two key limitations of random audits which can account for much of this drop-off: tax evasion through foreign intermediaries (e.g., undeclared foreign bank accounts) and tax evasion via pass-through businesses (e.g., partnerships). First, we find that offshore tax evasion goes almost entirely undetected in 2 random audits.1 To establish this result, we analyze the sample of U.S. taxpayers who disclosed hidden offshore assets in the context of specific enforcement initiatives conducted in 2009–2012. A number of these taxpayers had been randomly audited just before this crackdown on offshore evasion. In over 90% of these audits, the audit had not uncovered any foreign asset reporting requirement, despite the fact that these taxpayers did own foreign assets. Second, we find that tax evasion occurring in pass-through businesses (whose ownership is often highly concentrated) is substantially under-detected in individual random audits. Examiners usually do not verify the degree to which pass-through businesses have duly reported their income, especially for the most complex businesses. Thus, while the income of taxpayers in the bottom 99% of the income distribution is comprehensively examined, up to 35% of the income earned at the top is not comprehensively examined in the context of random audits.

Empirical studies generally find that audits increase tax compliance.1 Audits have three types of effects. First, they bring in direct revenue. For example, “IRS enforcement activities in fiscal 2017 produced $56 billion in revenue, of which $12 billion was from auditing, while the entire IRS enforcement budget was $4.7 billion.”2 And, of course, an increase in the number of audits brings in more revenue, particularly when audit rates are as low as they currently are for the IRS.3 2

Second, audits have an important pro-compliance effect on taxpayers who are not audited. Studies analyzing the effect on tax payments of increased audit rates typically find a very positive effect.4 This in itself provides a compelling reason to maintain an audit presence. Estimates of the indirect effect of audits vary from $4 to $12 for each $1 directly collected from enforcement.5 Thus, the “spillover” effect of audits on tax collections is much larger than the direct effect of audits.6 Accordingly, an increase in the direct revenue from audits is only a portion of the gains from increased audits. It is also worth noting that studies have found that tax penalties do not have nearly the deterrent effect that audits do.7

The starting point of our analysis is the IRS random audit program, known as the National Research Program. Random audits are commonly used to study and measure the extent of tax evasion. Researchers use random audits to test theories of tax evasion (Kleven et al., 2011), and tax authorities use them to estimate the overall extent of tax evasion and target audits (IRS, 2019). The academic notion of the random audit as the gold standard for understanding tax evasion comes from the traditional appeal of random sampling, combined with the classic deterrence model of tax evasion (Allingham and Sandmo, 1972), an implicit assumption of which is that audits lead to the detection of all tax evasion. In the real world, however, random audits do not detect all forms of tax evasion. Random audits are well designed to detect common forms of tax evasion, such as unreported self-employment income, overstated deductions, and the abuse of tax credits. But, we argue, these audits may not detect sophisticated evasion strategies, because doing so can require much more information, resources and specialized staff than available to tax authorities for their random audit programs.

Our first contribution is to document and quantify the limits of random audits when it comes to detecting top-end evasion in the United States. We find that detected evasion declines sharply at the very top of the income distribution, with only a trivial amount of evasion detected in the top 0.01%. Our analysis uncovers two key limitations of random audits which can account for much of this drop-off: tax evasion through foreign intermediaries (e.g., undeclared foreign bank accounts) and tax evasion via pass-through businesses (e.g., partnerships). First, we find that offshore tax evasion goes almost entirely undetected in 2 random audits.1 To establish this result, we analyze the sample of U.S. taxpayers who disclosed hidden offshore assets in the context of specific enforcement initiatives conducted in 2009–2012. A number of these taxpayers had been randomly audited just before this crackdown on offshore evasion. In over 90% of these audits, the audit had not uncovered any foreign asset reporting requirement, despite the fact that these taxpayers did own foreign assets. Second, we find that tax evasion occurring in pass-through businesses (whose ownership is often highly concentrated) is substantially under-detected in individual random audits. Examiners usually do not verify the degree to which pass-through businesses have duly reported their income, especially for the most complex businesses. Thus, while the income of taxpayers in the bottom 99% of the income distribution is comprehensively examined, up to 35% of the income earned at the top is not comprehensively examined in the context of random audits.

We have constructed a theoretical model of the impact of carbon tariffs on agricultural trade, and selected the United States, European Union and Japan as mock objects to impose carbon tariffs.. In this scenario, we will comprehensively discuss the impact of carbon tariffs on China’s agricultural trade. The reasons why we chose the United States, the European Union and Japan as mock objects are as follows: In recent years, China’s agricultural exports to the United States, the European Union and Japan have also gradually increased. According to China’s customs statistics, from 2002 to 2019, China’s agricultural exports to the European Union increased by 4.9 times; the average annual growth rate is 11%. The average annual growth rate of China’s agricultural exports to the United States reached 2.7%, and China’s agricultural trade with Japan continued to grow. Under the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic, China’s agricultural exports to the United States, Europe and Japan continued to grow from January to August 20221 (Figure 1). The above facts indicate that China’s agricultural trade cooperation with the United States, the European Union, and Japan is very close. In addition, Europe is one of the first regions in the world to propose carbon tariffs; once European and American countries impose carbon tariffs on China, it will have a significant impact on China’s agricultural trade. Thus, we selected the United States, Europe and Japan as mock objects.

The issue of hidden carbon in agriculture has increasingly become a focus of attention in the field of carbon research. The impact of carbon tariffs imposed by Europe and America on China will become increasingly significant as bilateral agricultural trade continues to grow. The specific impacts include:

(Dean, Co-Director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, https://www.bostonreview.net/forum_response/dean-baker-wealth-tax-distraction/ , 4-5)

Stepping back from all the practical and political obstacles, the idea of a wealth tax has been an obstacle to progressive steps to reverse the upward redistribution of income. Apart from its effect of absorbing the energy of progressives, it also serves to legitimate the upward redistribution by implying that it was the result of the natural workings of the market, rather than the of a system that was deliberately rigged to shift income to the rich. Market outcomes enjoy considerable legitimacy, especially in the United States. If the rich can maintain the illusion that their immense wealth is the result of their talents, hard work, and possibly good luck, this gives them an enormous and undeserved political edge in the public debate. The reality is they structured the system to generate extreme inequality. It is far more difficult to justify extreme inequality when we show it was the result of policy choices, such as patent monopolies, that were designed for this purpose, often at an enormous efficiency cost to the economy. It is difficult to justify patent monopolies that make drugs unaffordable just so that a few well-placed people in drug companies can get immensely rich. Similarly, it is hard to justify eight- and nine-figure executive pay that comes at the expense of the companies for whom they work. An attack on inequality must center on exposing the corruption that created it, not accepting this corruption and coming up with a tax fix of dubious effectiveness.

But proposals for a wealth tax face both economic and political objections. These start with mundane administrative problems, such as how to value a company that has not yet gone public or art that has been in the family for generations. Wealth-tax proponents suggest that taxpayers can be deterred from underreporting the value of such assets if the government is given the option of purchasing them at the reported price. However, it is hard to imagine the US government employing an army of fine art appraisers when the Internal Revenue Service is incapable even of retaining an adequate number of plainvanilla tax auditors., A related problem is taxpayer flight. Saez and Zucman suggest that this danger is exaggerated – that few people are likely to change their country of residence in response to an annual wealth levy of 2% or 3%. Warren notes further that the US taxes citizens on their global income regardless of where they reside, so that relocation is not an effective means of evasion. She proposes levying a 40% ‘exit tax’ on the assets of individuals worth more than $50 million who renounce their citizenship. Still, there are likely a variety of ways to evade taxation. Individuals modestly above the taxable threshold could divide their assets with their grown children sooner rather than later. They could donate to philanthropies that espouse their political values, bringing their wealth below taxable levels without diminishing their sway over public affairs. They could consume, since a dollar spent on consumption rather than invested is immediately free of this form of taxation. If nothing else, a wealth tax would be good for the luxury goods industry. These are all reasons for suspecting that a wealth tax is unlikely to yield $2.76 trillion of new revenue over ten years. And even if it does, this will go only a small way toward financing programs like universal health care, which Warren herself prices out at $20.5 trillion over a decade. Politically, the challenges are, if anything, even more daunting. Whether a federal wealth tax would be judged constitutional by the Supreme Court is uncertain. The question applies with even greater force to Warren’s proposed exit tax, which might be deemed to violate the ‘takings clause’ of the Fifth Amendment prohibiting the federal government from taking private property for public purposes without just compensation. A candidate on the left advancing a wealth tax would be attacked by the right for engaging in class warfare. A wealth tax may appeal to left-leaning progressive voters, but it is not clear that the apocryphal median voter is on board with the idea. Commentators swayed by these objections – but nonetheless concerned about wealth and income inequality – have suggested tightening existing income tax rules and enforcement rather than creating an entire new fiscal bureaucracy. Forms of income currently enjoying concessionary tax treatment, such as carried interest (funds paid to investment managers in excess of the amount that the manager contributes to the partnership), could be taxed as ordinary income – that is to say, at higher rates. Taxes on wealth could be raised at least modestly within the current framework by increasing estate tax rates and lowering the taxable threshold.

Ironically, the rosy revenue projections that wealth-tax supporters such as Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman  in 2021 for its revenue potential—starting in 2023—are now hopelessly out of date. Two years ago, at the height of the pandemic, billionaires accumulated capital at near-record rates. Now, potential gains from a wealth tax have fallen because of the enormous  in wealth (toward greater income equality!) experienced by virtually all newly minted tech moguls. Elon Musk leads the pack, with capital losses of $115 billion in 2022 alone. He has good company in Jeff Bezos ($80 billion); Mark Zuckerberg ($78 billion); and Larry Page ($40 billion). In sum, the American billionaires lost $660 billion this past year, about one-third of the $2 trillion in losses worldwide. Nothing guarantees that they will recover those losses any time soon, if ever. Considering a hypothetical 3 percent wealth tax rate, close to $20 billion in domestic wealth-tax revenue disappeared in 2022; this number would be far higher if the wealth tax also reached foreigners.

Pass the tax and those losses will only get larger. Killing the goose that lays a golden egg is to be expected in any system that stresses redistribution first and growth second.

At this point, the acute tradeoff becomes clear: the only reliable asset class for wealth-taxation purposes is publicly traded stocks and bonds, which of course can decline rapidly in value after the tax is imposed, but also before it is collected. (Think of the position of Elon Musk and others in the class of 2022.) Necessarily, that type of tax will miss the portion of their wealth that they hold in unlisted and illiquid assets, and thus will not satisfy progressives for whom depriving the rich of wealth is every bit as important as providing additional income to the poor.  National wealth taxes face this difficulty, which poses an even greater challenge for a state wealth tax, with its more limited territorial reach.

The revenue collected will fall short of expectations. Worse, the tax will damage the economy. Today’s ablest entrepreneurs will be forced to devote their time to defending their fortunes against the predation by the one or more states that lay claim to their wealth. Wealth creation and income from other sources will both fall as administrative expenses and high-stakes litigation rise. An overall decline in social wealth will likely lead to a reduction of investment and wages and consequently to a lower standard of living and a loss of tax revenues from other sources.

However, wealth taxes have been repealed in many OECD countries since the 1990s because of the practical challenges of administering these types of taxes and the limited gains in terms of revenues raised and redistribution achieved (OECD 2018). Administrative challenges were particularly severe for types of wealth that required self-reporting and were prone to underreporting, as found in the case of Sweden (Seim 2017), and for regimes that exempted specific types of assets, such as business assets (Saez & Zucman 2019). Even in the four OECD countries (France, Luxembourg, Norway, and Switzerland) that still maintain wealth taxes, they account for a small share of tax revenues—on average, 0.9% of GDP, compared with overall tax revenues of almost 40% of GDP.

In EMDEs, wealth taxes have also been advocated as a means of addressing inequality, such as in South Africa (Chatterjee et al. 2021). Wealth taxes in Argentina, Colombia, and Uruguay have typically generated even lower revenues relative to GDP than in advanced economies (Morgan & Carvalho 2021). In 2018, revenues from wealth taxes ranged from 0.05 (Colombia) to 0.98 (Uruguay) percent of GDP, compared with 0.08 (France) to 2.82 (Luxembourg) percent of GDP in advanced economies. Moldova and Bolivia introduced wealth taxes in 2016 and 2020, respectively; revenues from these taxes have been positively surprising in Bolivia but disappointing in Moldova (World Bank 2019b).

Now that the Republicans have taken control of the House of Representatives, it has become crystal clear that there will be no federal wealth tax on high-net-worth individuals for at least the next two years. Unfortunately, as with so many bad policy proposals, the push for a wealth tax has instead generated  in blue states. California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, New York, and Washington are considering introducing their own wealth taxes. Through joint effort, they hope to make it more difficult for wealthy individuals to flee high-tax states for more favorable jurisdictions. This strategy represents wishful thinking at its finest. If this quixotic endeavor should become law, it will only hasten the exodus of wealthy individuals from blue California and New York to red Florida and Texas.

My Mercatus Center colleague Jack Salmon and I recently published a paper that looks at the economic literature on this issue to evaluate the arguments of wealth-tax proponents. We found that they generally exaggerate wealth inequality in the United States, overestimate the potential revenue a wealth tax would raise and minimize the negative impact of such a levy.

In a study done for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity, Rice University economists John Diamond and George Zodrow examined the expected impact of Warren’s previously proposed wealth tax (a 2% annual tax on wealth over $50 million, rising to 6% for wealth over $1 billion). They found long-run GDP loss of 2.7%, thanks in large part to a 3.7% decline in the capital stock. Economists Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Gordon Gray of the American Action Forum also found that Warren’s wealth tax would cost workers 60 cents of earnings for every dollar of revenue raised, or approximately $1.2 trillion in lost earnings over the first 10 years.

Conclusion In order to eliminate the war on drugs, California legalized the use of both medical and recreational marijuana. Propositions 215 and 64 allowed the government to tax and regulate marijuana to generate revenue for the state. Also, law enforcement was able to focus on priorities by ending the arrests of non-violent marijuana users, saving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars a year and allowing police to focus on violent crimes. However, these are just on paper since there are limitations to policies relating to taxation and crime. Citizens are obligated to follow the current policy of marijuana usage. High excise taxes might have allowed the state to focus on addressing public order and safety issues. Yet, there are no clear indicators of whether crime rates in California have increased or decreased. Marijuana legalization is supposed to reduce crime rates; however, the reality can be more complicated. On the one hand, there are claims that marijuana legalization led to rising crime rates from the time it was legalized while there is no absolute increase in both violent and nonviolent crime rates on the other hand. The only truth here is that marijuana legalization does affect the justice system. Even so, the taxes imposed on growers and cultivators down to consumers must be debated further. Taxation, while it is considered as the biggest vantage point in legalized marijuana, also remains a limiting factor that may eventually affect the state’s estimation and actual generation of profit. Questions remain about how much states legalizing marijuana can earn, considering the volatility of the marijuana market and the presence of the black market. When this happens, there would not be enough marijuana tax fund to cover public safety issues. Again, there is a need to look into marijuana legalization in California from a holistic perspective.

There should be some correlation between the severity of a penalty and the seriousness of the crime, the penalty on a marijuana business depends upon an item (costs incurred) that is neither the harm to be taxed nor is correlated with that harm. The degree of caused by a denial of a deduction for an expense that produces income has no relationship to the nature of the offense and so is an arbitrary policy. But the treatment of a marijuana business by [section] 280E goes even further by denying a deduction for ordinary lawful expenses of a lawful business. Let us consider what justifications there might be for this provision and whether they can stand scrutiny. A. Sin Tax One possible justification for the denial of a deduction is that raising the tax costs of the dealer or producer will raise the cost of acquiring marijuana and, thereby, decrease the demand for it and reduce the amount of its use. In other words, the provision can be viewed as a kind of sin tax. The quotation above from the Senate Finance Report gives reason to doubt that was the Congressional purpose for the adoption of the provision, but nevertheless can it be defended on that ground? First, there is no reason to impose a sin tax on the medical use of marijuana. The use of medicine to relieve pain is not against public policy, and there is no reason to increase the cost of obtaining that relief. Indeed, increasing the cost would be contrary to the public policy of having medicine affordable to those who need it. At the very least, if the denial of a deduction were a sin tax, a distinction should be made between a purchase for medicinal use and a purchase for recreational use. (28) The question would be whether that distinction can be made in practice. The taxpayer could be required to show that the marijuana produced was held only for sale for medicinal purposes. If that requirement were made, marijuana dealers and producers would segregate the inventory dedicated to medicinal use from the rest of their inventory so that only the latter would be taxed. With the vast majority of states legalizing some form of marijuana for medical purposes, and even the DEA and FDA certifying that it has at least some medical benefits, it is worth noting that no other product or activity that has proven health benefits is subject to a sin tax. Even if that distinction were adopted, the imposition of a sin tax on recreational marijuana is questionable. In states where marijuana is legal, it is expensive to purchase it legally. It is probable that the tax law's denial of a deduction is a factor in the high costs. (29) Consequently, a black market has arisen that sells marijuana for much less than the lawful market. The deduction denial (which for this discussion we are treating as a sin tax) has the side effect of creating an incentive for a black market in which the dealers do not report and pay taxes. One negative of having a black market is that the government cannot regulate the production of the product to ensure that there are no harmful impurities in it.