Housing Bubbles, Offshore Assets and Wealth Inequality in Spain
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
WID.world WORKING PAPER SERIES N° 2017/19 Housing Bubbles, Offshore Assets and Wealth Inequality in Spain Clara Martínez Toledano December 2017 1 Preliminary version Housing Bubbles, Offshore Assets and Wealth Inequality in Spain∗ Clara Martínez-Toledanoy Paris School of Economics December 2017 Abstract This paper combines different sources (tax records, national accounts, wealth surveys) and the capitalization method in order to deliver consistent, unified wealth distribution series for Spain over the 1984-2013 period, with detailed breakdowns by age over the 1999-2013 sub- period. Wealth concentration has been quite stable over this period for the middle 40% and bottom 50%, with shares ranging between 5-10% and 30-40%. Since the end of the nineties Spain has experienced a moderate rise in wealth inequality, with significant fluctuations due to asset price movements. Housing concentration rose during the years prior to the burst of the bubble, due to the larger increase in secondary dwelling acquisitions (quantity effect) by upper wealth groups, and decreased afterwards. The housing bubble had, however, a neu- tral impact on wealth inequality. Rich individuals substituted financial for housing assets during the boom, and compensated for the decrease in real estate prices during the bust by selling some of their dwellings and accumulating more financial assets. Even though housing reduces the levels of wealth inequality over the period, the bulk in secondary residence, to- gether with offshore assets, large capital gains and different rates of return and savings rates across groups have contributed to keeping the same high levels of wealth concentration of the 1980s in the late 2000s. Keywords: Wealth Inequality, Housing, Offshore Assets, Spain JEL Classification: D3, N3, R2 ∗I want to specially thank Facundo Alvaredo and Thomas Piketty for their constant and excellent supervi- sion. I am also very grateful to Miguel Artola, Cristina Barceló, Olympia Bover, Paul Dutronc, Luis Estévez, Gabrielle Fack, Bertrand Garbinti, Jonathan Goupille, José Montalbán, Jorge Onrubia, Daniel Waldenström and Gabriel Zucman for their helpful comments, as well as participants at the 5th Conference on Household Finance and Consumption held at the ECB, the 2016 Spring Meeting of Young Economists in Lisbon, the LAGV 2016 International Conference in Public Economics in Aix-en-Provence and seminars at Paris School of Economics and Bank of Spain. I acknowledge financial support from Fundación Ramón Areces and Bank of Spain at different stages of the project. [email protected] 1 Introduction Both the evolution and determinants of wealth inequality are currently at the center of the academic and political sphere. This is largely due to the debate generated by Thomas Piketty’s prominent book, Capital in the Twenty-First Century (Piketty(2014)), in which he warns that the tendency of returns on capital to exceed the rate of economic growth threatens to generate extreme inequalities. Moreover, he also emphasizes the importance of analyzing empirically the historical evolution of wealth distributions. Research on wealth inequality has, however, a long tradition which dates back to the late 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, in which a number of authors started to study wealth among the living using mainly French and British inheritance data.1 Nonetheless, it is only after the first half of the 20th century that academics started to construct long run homogeneous historical series on top wealth shares (Lampman (1962) for the US, Atkinson and Harrison(1978) for the UK, Piketty et al.(2006) for France and Roine and Waldenström(2009) for Sweden). There exist five main methods and/or sources to analyze wealth inequality. The first is the estate multiplier method, that provides a snapshot of the wealth distribution at the time of death using estate tax records data. The main difficulty is how to generalize from decedents to the full population. The second possible approach is to use surveys of household finances. Contrary to the estate multiplier method, one advantage of using survey data is that it allows to characterize the middle and bottom of the wealth distribution. Nevertheless, even though most of these surveys oversample wealthy households, concentration at the top tends to be underestimated because of misreporting or top coding. The third available source are wealth tax returns. Wealth tax data cover very well the top of the distribution, but three main limitations remain. First, there are very few countries in the world which have a wealth tax (i.e. Spain, France, Norway, Uruguay, etc.). Second, only very wealthy individuals are subject to the tax, making it impossible to analyze the middle and bottom of the distribution. Third, many assets are exempted from this tax, so that it is not possible to have a whole picture of the wealth distribution. The fourth is the capitalization method, which consists of applying a capitalization factor to the capital income distribution to arrive to the wealth distribution. The main advantages of the capitalization technique are that it is based on income data, which are much easier to obtain than wealth data, and that the top is very well covered. The main limitation is, as in the case of the wealth tax, that there are also some assets whose generated income is not subject to the tax. Finally, one 1See Piketty(2011) for the main references in this literature. 2 can also analyze the upper part of the distribution using lists of high-wealth individuals, such as the annual Forbes 400 list. The drawback in this case is that named lists are limited to a very small group of top wealth-holders and have non-systematic coverage. Despite the immense literature on the analysis of wealth distributions, two important gaps remain. First, there is still no consensus on the method of analysis that should be adopted, since there are conflicting results depending on which of the techniques or sources are used. For instance, Saez and Zucman(2016) find that wealth considerably increased at the top 0.1% in the US over the last two decades using the income capitalization method, contrary to the results obtained by Kopczuk and Saez(2004) using the estate multiplier method. Second, due to data limitations, empirical evidence on the determinants of wealth concentration is still scarce. There is some evidence that the surge in top incomes and offshore wealth (Saez and Zucman(2016), Alstadsæter et al.(2017)), and the increase in saving and rates of return inequality (Garbinti et al.(2017), Saez and Zucman(2016)) have pushed toward wealth concentration in the last two decades. However, it is still unclear which are the distributional effects of specific economic phenomena, such as housing bubbles. The aim of this research is to analyze wealth inequality in Spain using a mixed survey- capitalization method from 1984 up to 2013, with a particular focus on the years of the housing boom and bust. By analyzing Spain I will contribute to the literature of wealth inequality in five ways. First, Spain experienced a unprecedented increase in aggregate wealth due to a boom in housing between 2000 and 2008. Hence, it is interesting to analyze the distributional effects of this economic phenomenon which have not been deeply studied so far. Second, Spain has high-quality personal income tax micro-files with detailed income for each tax unit and income category over the period 1984-2013, as well as publicly available administrative aggregate data on personal wealth held by Spanish residents abroad. Thus, they allow to provide a careful estimation of the evolution and composition of Spanish wealth shares from bottom to the top, with breakdowns by age for the 1999-2013 sub-period and a correction for offshore assets. To my knowledge, the few studies that have analyzed wealth concentration in Spain using administrative data have only focused on the top 1%, have never corrected for offshore assets, and survey data (Survey of Household Finances, Bank of Spain) are only available for four waves since 2002. Third, I go one step forward previous distributional studies and further decompose wealth accumulation by asset type. This new asset-specific decomposition allows me to quantify not only the relative importance of each channel (income, saving rate and rate of return inequality), but also the role 3 played by each asset to explain the channels that drive the observed dynamics of the distribution of wealth. Fourth, using the steady-state formula developed by Garbinti et al.(2017) I carry simulations to better understand which are the key forces (unequal labor incomes, unequal rates of return and/or unequal saving rates) behind long term wealth inequality dynamics in Spain. Fifth, Spain is one of the few countries in the world that has a wealth tax and for which micro- files from wealth tax records are available. Thus, from the methodological point of view, it is interesting to test the capitalization method by first comparing the wealth shares using the income capitalization method with the shares using wealth tax returns and by second calculating the distribution of the rates of return. The starting point of the mixed capitalization-survey approach used in this work involves the application of a capitalization factor to the distribution of capital income to arrive to an estimate of the wealth distribution. Capitalization factors are computed for each asset in such a way as to map the total flow of taxable income to total wealth recorded in Financial and Non-financial accounts. When combining taxable incomes and aggregate capitalization factors, it is assumed that within each asset class capitalization factors are the same for each individual. By using this methodology, I am able to obtain wealth distribution series consistent with official financial and non-financial household accounts. In Spain, as in most of countries, not all assets generate taxable income.