Inequality and Redistribution in France (1990-2018): Evidence from Distributional National Accounts (DINA)

Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

A. Bozio1, B. Garbinti2, J. Goupille-Lebret3, M. Guillot1 and T. Piketty 1

1PSE, 2Banque de France and Crest, 3Univ Lyon - ENS Lyon, INSEAD

Séminaire Inégalités, Insee November, 14th 2018

This paper presents the authors’ views and should not be interpreted as reﬂecting those of their institutions

1 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Motivation (1/2)

Deaton (Nobel Prize Lecture, 2016): “While we often must focus on aggregates for macroeconomic policy, it is impossible to think coherently about national well-being while ignoring inequality and poverty, neither of which is visible in aggregate data. Indeed, and except in exceptional cases, macroeconomic aggregates themselves depend on distribution. These arguments are much more widely accepted today than they were thirty years ago.”

August 28, 2018: Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, introduced the “Measuring Real Income Growth Act of 2018”, which would require the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) to report how economic growth is distributed across the income spectrum. This data would help to put quarterly GDP growth numbers in context ( Source )

2 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Motivation (2/2)

• Large disconnect between the study of inequality and macro • Macro: national accounts with no distribution information • Inequality: surveys and tax data data inconsistent with national aggregates

• Redistributive impact of public policies? • Pretax income inequality are raising • Tax and transfer system = 50% GDP

3 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

The DINA Project

Multi-country project: Distributional National Accounts (DINA)

• Provide long-term series on distribution of income and wealth • Homogeneous across countries and over time • Consistent with National Income and Wealth Accounts • Covering all the distribution from bottom to top • Covering pretax AND post-tax income inequality

• For France: three papers • Wealth inequality • Pretax income inequality • Today: Post-tax income inequality

4 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Research question

What is the redistributive impact of taxes and transfers on inequality ?

1 Methodological contribution: • Construction of long-term homogeneous series of post-tax income inequality • Detailed breakdown by age, tax and transfer categories

2 Empirical contributions: • Analyze the redistributive impact of taxes and transfers in France and in the U.S

5 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Main Findings

• Taxes and transfers have counteracted the increase in pre-tax inequality in France (but not in the U.S)

• But over the period 1990-2018 the tax system reduces more inequality in the U.S than in France

• Differences in overall inequality between France and US are explained by differences in primary inequality (pretax inequality) rather than in secondary redistribution

• The proﬁle of taxation is structurally regressive in France

• Monetary transfers mostly beneﬁt older age groups and leave unaffected the low relative position of younger age groups

6 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Literature • Income inequality • Top income shares: Kuznets (1955), Piketty (2001), Atkinson and Piketty (2007, 2010) • Growing literature on DINA series: U.S: Piketty, Saez and Zucman (2018); France: Garbinti, Goupille-Lebret and Piketty (2018); China: Piketty, Yang and Zucman (2017); Russia: Novokmet, Piketty and Zucman (2017); Brazil: Morgan (2017); Middle-East: Alvaredo, Assouan and Piketty (2018),... • Progressivity of tax and transfer systems (Pechman and Okner, 1974) • In France: Bourguignon (1998); Chanchole et Lalanne (2012); Eidelman, Langumier and Vicard (2013); Landais, Piketty and Saez (2011); Bozio, Breda and Guillot (2018) and several Insee works (Amar et al (2008), Accardo et al. (2009), Le Laidier (2009)) • Cross-country comparison: Piketty and Saez (2007); Mirrlees and al. (2010); Sutherland and Figari (2013) with EUROMOD; OECD work by Zwijnenburg, Bournot and Giovannelli (2016) • Role of taxes and transfers on inequality dynamics: • Kaymak and Poschke (2016); Hubmer et al.(2017); PPVR (2018) • Determinants of pretax income inequality • education policies (Godlin and Katz, 2008; Chetty et al., 2017), minimum wage (Lee, 1999), compensation bargaining (Piketty, Saez and Stantcheva, 2014), international trade and

technological change (Rosen, 1981) 7 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Outline

Data and methodology

How does secondary redistribution reduce inequality?

Decomposition by taxes

Decomposition by transfer categories and age groups

Appendix

8 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Outline

Data and methodology

How does secondary redistribution reduce inequality?

Decomposition by taxes

Decomposition by transfer categories and age groups

Appendix

9 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Income concepts

• Factor income • sum of all income ﬂows going to labor and capital, before taking into account the operation of the pension system and other taxes and transfers. • Pretax income • sum of all income ﬂows going to labor and capital, after taking into account the operation of the pension system, but before taking into account other taxes and transfers. = Factor income-pension and unemployment contributions+ pension and unemployment distributions • Post-tax disposable income = Pretax income - all taxes + monetary transfers • Post-tax income = Pretax income - all taxes + all transfers (monetary+in-kind+collective) • Equal-split-adults series: income of married couples divided by two

10 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

The French tax and transfer system

• Taxes regrouped into ﬁve categories • Indirect taxes: sales and excise taxes, professional taxes, and residence taxes • Capital taxes: corporate taxes, wealth taxes, property taxes, and bequest taxes. • Flat income taxes: CSG, CRDS, other social charges • Progressive income taxes: IR • Non-contributive social contributions: all SSCs that are not dedicated to the ﬁnancing of the pension and unemployment system + taxes on wages

• Transfers decomposed into three categories: • Monetary transfers: various types of housing benefits, family benefits, and social benefits • In-kind transfers: all transfers that are not monetary and can be individualized (health, education, culture and recreational goods and services) • Collective expenditure: all consumption services that benefit to the community in general and cannot be individualized (defense, police, the justice system, public infrastructure, etc.)

11 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Data sources and methodology

• Data sources • National account series from INSEE • Microﬁles of income tax returns: 1970-2016 • Household surveys (Wealth surveys from 1986 and Housing surveys from 1973)

• Methodology to recover pre-tax income (developped in Garbinti, Goupille-Lebret, Piketty 2018 Details ) • Start from ﬁscal income reported in microﬁles • Impute missing components such as to match pre-tax national income social contributions, imputed rents, retained earnings, corporate tax, production taxes, etc.

12 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Simulations and imputations

From pretax income to post tax disposable income : 1 Simulate precisely all monetary transfers and taxes levied on income (progressive and ﬂat income taxes, and social contributions). 2 Use estimated variables as a proxy for tax base when simulating wealth taxes, property taxes, and residence taxes 3 Impute the remaining taxes based on rules and tax incidence assumptions • Consumption taxes are assumed to be borne by consumers only • Corporate taxes are allocated proportionally to ﬁnancial income For 2017 and 2018 : We take into account changes in taxation, based on the data from 2016.

13 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Outline

Data and methodology

How does secondary redistribution reduce inequality?

Decomposition by taxes

Decomposition by transfer categories and age groups

Appendix

14 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 1 – Top 10% income shares (Pretax income): France vs. U.S

50%

US, 1990-2015 : +20.5 %

45%

40%

France, 1990-2015 : +7.0 %

35% Incomeshare 30%

25% Pretax income, U.S. Pretax income, France

20% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Note: Distribution of pretax and disposable income among adults. Equal-split-adults Long term evolution series (income of married couples divided by two). 15 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 2 – Top 10% income shares: France vs. U.S.

50%

US, 1990-2015 : +19 %

45%

40%

35% France, 1990-2015 : -3 % Incomeshare 30%

25% Pretax income, U.S. Disposable income, U.S. Pretax income, France Disposable income, France 20% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Note: Distribution of pretax and disposable income among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two). 16 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 3 – Bottom 50% income shares: France vs. U.S.

30%

France, 1990-2015 : - 8 %

25%

20%

US, 1990-2015 : - 26,5 %

15% Incomeshare

10% Pretax income, U.S. Pretax income, France

5% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Note: Distribution of pretax and disposable income among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two). 17 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 4 – Bottom 50% income shares: France vs. U.S.

30% France, 1990-2015 : +3 %

25%

20%

US, 1990-2015 : - 17 %

15% Incomeshare

10% Disposable income, U.S. Pretax income, U.S. Disposable income, France Pretax income, France

5% 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

Note: Distribution of pretax and disposable income among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two). 18 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 5 – Inequality and secondary redistribution in France

Impact of fiscal redistribution on inequality: 18 U.S : decrease of 34 % France : decrease of 23% 16

4 Ratio between average income of top 10% and bottom 50%: 2 Pretax income, US Disposable income, US Pretax income, France Disposable income, France

0 revenu revenu moyen top du % 10 revenu / moyen 50 des les % plus pauvres 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Note: Distribution of pretax and disposable income among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two). 19 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 6 – Inequality and secondary redistribution in France

Impact of fiscal redistribution on inequality: 18 U.S : decrease of 34 % France : decrease of 23% 16 2010-2015: 14 U.S : decrease of 38 % 2000-2009: France : decrease of 30% U.S : decrease of 34 % 12 France : decrease of 23% 1990-1999: U.S : decrease of 33 % 10 France : decrease of 17%

4 Ratio between average income of top 10% and bottom 50%: 2 Pretax income, US Disposable income, US Pretax income, France Disposable income, France

Other inequality indicators

Change from pretax to France US disposable income (in %) (1990-2018) (1990-2015) Mean Top 10/B50 -23 -34 Mean Top10/M40 -6 -13 Mean M40/B50 -18 -24 Mean Top10/B10 -61 -67 Mean Top10/B20 -42 -51 Palma ratio -27 -39 p75/p25 -19 -25 Gini index Absolute difference -6 -8 Relative difference -14 -14 Theil index Absolute difference -8 -17 Relative difference -20 -22

21 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

First ﬁnding

• Increasing pretax income inequality in France and the U.S. since 1990

• Taxes and transfers have counteracted the increase in pre-tax inequality in France (but not in the U.S.)

• But the tax system reduces more inequality in the U.S. than in France

• Differences in overall inequality between France and US. explained by differences in primary inequality rather than in secondary redistribution • Key role of primary redistribution on inequality • Education and health system, labor market institutions (minimum wage,unions), etc.

22 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Outline

Data and methodology

How does secondary redistribution reduce inequality?

Decomposition by taxes

Decomposition by transfer categories and age groups

Appendix

23 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Different concepts of contributive capacities can be used

• Lifetime income: not possible in France!

• Pretax income among adults • Include overall population • But give too much weight on temporary situations (unemployment, youth)

• Factor income among working adults • Closer to permanent income • But exclude large fraction of population (retired and unemployed individuals)

24 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 7 – Taxes paid by percentile of pretax income, France 2018

50%

40%

Capital taxes 30%

Progressive income taxes Indirect taxes 20% Flat income taxes

10%

Non Contributive social contributions 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999 Distribution of pre-tax national income among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two).

25 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 8 – Taxes paid by percentile of factor income, France 2018

60%

50% Indirect taxes

40% Progressive income taxes Capital taxes Flat income taxes 30%

20%

Total social contributions 10%

0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999

Distribution of factor national income among working population, i.e. adults aged 25-60 y.o working at least part-time.

26 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Wealth vs. income

• Wealth as an indicator of contributive capacities • Wealth is a complementary indicator of contributive capacities • Several taxes are based on wealth (wealth, property and inheritance taxes, ...) • Ideally one would be interested in considering lifetime income, which is a combination of income and inherited wealth.

• Complementary indicators of contributive capacities • Wealth • “Augmented income”: sum of income and wealth divided by life expectancy

27 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 9 – Taxes paid by percentile of wealth, France 2018

12%

10%

6% Indirect taxes

4% Flat income taxes

2% Capital taxes Non Contributive social contributions Progressive income taxes 0% 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999

Distribution of wealth among equal-split adults (wealth of married coupled divided by two).

28 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 10 – Taxes paid by percentile of augmented income, France 2018

40%

35%

30%

25% Indirect taxes

20%

Progressive income taxes 15% Flat income taxes Capital taxes 10%

5% Non Contributive social contributions 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999 Distribution of augmented income among adults (pretax income + wealth divided by life expectancy). Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two).

29 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Taxes paid by income groups (factor income): 1990-2018

30 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 11 – Taxes paid by percentile of factor income, France 1990

55%

50%

45% Indirect taxes 40% Capital taxes 35% Progressive income taxes 30%

25%

20%

15% Total Social Contributions

10%

0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999 Distribution of factor national income among working population, i.e. adults aged 25-60 y.o working at least part-time.

31 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 12 – Taxes paid by percentile of factor income, France 2010

55%

50%

45% Indirect taxes

40% Progressive income taxes 35% Flat income taxes 30% Capital taxes

25%

20% Total Social Contributions 15%

10%

0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999 Distribution of factor national income among working population, i.e. adults aged 25-60 y.o working at least part-time.

32 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 13 – Taxes paid by percentile of factor income, France 2016

60%

50% Indirect taxes

40% Progressive income taxes Capital taxes Flat income taxes

30%

20% Total social contributions

10%

0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999

Distribution of factor national income among working population, i.e. adults aged 25-60 y.o working at least part-time.

33 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 14 – Taxes paid by percentile of factor income, France 2018

60%

50% Indirect taxes

40% Progressive income taxes Capital taxes Flat income taxes 30%

20%

Total social contributions 10%

0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999

Distribution of factor national income among working population, i.e. adults aged 25-60 y.o working at least part-time.

34 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

35 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Second ﬁndings

• The overall proﬁle of taxation is only mildly progressive • Redistribution of the French tax and transfer system has increased • Reductions in non-contributive SSC for the bottom 50% • Tax increase for top 10% • But tax proﬁle remains regressive at the very top • This top-end regressivity was temporary halted in 2013-2016 • It reappeared in 2017-2018

36 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Outline

Data and methodology

How does secondary redistribution reduce inequality?

Decomposition by taxes

Decomposition by transfer categories and age groups

Appendix

37 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Decomposition by transfer categories

• Transfers (excluding pensions and unemployment beneﬁts) represent a stable part of national income in France over the 1990-2018 period (30-35%) • Monetary transfers represent a modest part of these transfers (4% of national income) • Family, housing and social beneﬁts

38 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 15 – Structure of transfers (% national income), France 1990-2018

40%

35%

30% Collective consumption goods 25%

20%

15% In-kind transfers 10%

5% Housing benefits Family benefits 0% Social benefits 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 Distribution of pre-tax and post-tax national income among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two).

39 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Who beneﬁts from monetary transfers?

• No signiﬁcant changes over the 1990-2018 period

• Monetary transfers are mainly targeted toward lower income groups • Low bottom income groups receive about 8% of average national income in monetary transfers • But richer individuals still beneﬁt from monetary transfers • Middle class: 4% of average national income • Top income groups: about 2%

40 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 16 – Monetary transfers received (% average income) by disposable income groupe

12%

10%

1995 2000 8% 2010 2018

0% 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 99.5 99.9 99.99 Distribution of disposable income among equal-split adults (income of married couples divided by two). 41 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Intergenerational redistribution?

• Age-based inequality is relatively large

• But secondary redistribution seems to have little impact on the relative income of the different age groups • The relative low position of the younger (20-30 yo) seems virtually unaffected • Most younger individuals are excluded from social and family beneﬁts

• Older individuals (> 60 yo) tend to beneﬁt a little more than the others, mostly at the expense of the 50-60 yo. 1995

42 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 17 – Age-income proﬁle in France in 2018, Pretax vs Disposable

140%

120%

100%

80%

60% 2018 : Pretax income

2018: Disposable income 40%

Average income Average age by (% average income 20+) 20%

0% 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Distributions of pretax national income and disposable among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two). 43 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Conclusion

• Estimation of post-tax (disposable) Distributional National Accounts (DINA) for France • Series can be broken down by percentiles age, tax and transfer categories over the 1990-2018 period • Next step: extend series back to 1900 • Main ﬁndings • Taxes and transfers have counteracted the increase in pre-tax inequality in France (but not in the U.S) • But the tax system reduces more inequality in the U.S than in France • Differences in overall inequality between Fr and US explained by differences in primary inequality rather than in secondary redistribution • Key role of primary redistribution on inequality • Need to duplicate this work to other countries to better understand the respective role of primary and secondary redistribution on inequality

44 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Outline

Data and methodology

How does secondary redistribution reduce inequality?

Decomposition by taxes

Decomposition by transfer categories and age groups

Appendix

45 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

Appendix

45 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 18 – Top 10% income shares (Pretax income): France vs. U.S Figure 18b: Top 1 % income shares: France vs US, 1910-2014 25%

1 068 850 € (PPP)

USA 20% France

15%

10%

374 200 €

5% 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Distribution of pretax national income (before all taxes and transfers, except pensions and unempl. insurance) among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two). Note: Distribution of pretax and disposable income among adults. Equal-split-adults Back series (income of married couples divided by two). 46 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 19 – Taxes paid by percentile of pretax income, France 1990

50%

45%

40%

35%

30% Indirect taxes Capital taxes 25%

20% Progressive income taxes 15%

10% Non Contributive social contributions 5%

0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999

Distribution of pre-tax national income among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two).

46 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 20 – Taxes paid by percentile of pretax income, France 2010

50%

45%

40%

35%

30% Capital taxes 25% Progressive income taxes 20% Indirect taxes Flat income taxes 15%

10%

5% Non Contributive social contributions 0% 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 95 99 995 999 9999 Distribution of pre-tax national income among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two).

46 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 21 – Taxes paid by percentile of pretax income, France 2016

50%

40%

Capital taxes 30%

Progressive income taxes Indirect taxes 20% Flat income taxes

10%

46 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 22 – Taxes paid by percentile of pretax income, France 2018

50%

40%

Capital taxes 30%

Progressive income taxes Indirect taxes 20% Flat income taxes

10%

46 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

FIGURE 23 – Age-income proﬁle in France in 1995, Pretax vs Disposable

140%

120%

100%

80%

1995 : Pretax income 60% 1995: Disposable income

40%

Average income Average age by (% average income 20+) 20%

0% 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 Distributions of pretax national and disposable income among adults. Equal-split-adults series (income of married couples divided by two).

46 / 46 Back Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

From ﬁscal income to pretax income

The gap between fiscal income and national income can be decomposed into three components: 1 Tax-exempt labor income 2 Tax-exempt capital income 3 Production taxes How we deal with them: 1- Tax-exempt labor income: mainly non-contributive social security contributions (SSCs) and, to a lesser extent, non-taxable compensation items (health benefits and a number of other in-kind benefits) • We compute SSCs (employer and employee) by simulating the complexity of the different SSC schemes each year • In the absence of specific information, we simply impute non-taxable compensation items in proportion to fiscal labor income.

Back

46 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

From fiscal income to pretax income 2- Tax-exempt capital income: • Fully tax-exempted capital income components: income from life insurance assets, imputed rents and deposit and saving accounts ⇒ Imputations based on wealth and housing surveys on the basis of labor income, financial income and age. We then attribute the corresponding asset income flows on the basis of average rates of return observed in national accounts for each asset class • Some capital income components are included into the income tax returns but their aggregate may differ from those reported in national accounts (due to tax avoidance or tax evasion) ⇒ We simply adjust proportionally each of these capital income components in order to match their counterpart in national accounts. Assumption: tax evasion and tax avoidance behaviors do not vary along each income-specific distribution (which is very conservative) • Corporate retained earnings and corporate taxes are not directly received or paid by individuals and are therefore excluded from income tax ⇒ We impute them in proportion to individual dividends, life insurance income, and interests

Back 46 / 46 Methods Inequality Tax Transfers Appendix

From ﬁscal income to pretax income

3- Production taxes: are split into 4 categories: i) sales and excise taxes (which include value added taxes and several taxes on energy products, tobacco, alcohol beverages, among others); ii) professional taxes; iii) household property taxes; iv) taxes on wages. • Commercial taxes and, sales and excise taxes are borne by consumers only, proportionally to consumption • We assume that household property taxes only fall on housing assets and attribute them to individuals in proportion to their housing assets. • We consider taxes on wages only fall on labor and impute them proportionally to social security contributions ⇒ Our implicit tax incidence assumptions are relatively rudimentary and could be improved in future estimates. However, we have tested a number of alternative tax incidence assumptions, and found only second-order effects on the level and time pattern of our pretax income series Back

46 / 46