@finanzwende @gabriel_zucman @annette_als

@JuanImbett @MarceloOrtizM1 Good luck with the paper!

@JuanImbett @MarceloOrtizM1 Exactly, that's what I had in mind. I think it's quite important to make very clear that your finding is no general equilibrium effect and does not imply that the world benefits from tax havens, to avoid misunderstandings/misuse like here:

@JuanImbett @MarceloOrtizM1 How is this different from saying that a thief generates more economic activity and taxes than a non-thief as the thief will spend the stolen money, boost the economy and generate tax revenues?

@JuanImbett @MarceloOrtizM1 To put it differently: Is it surprising that firms that keep more for themselves (taking it away from the public) reinvest more and therefore generate more investment & taxes as a second-order effect?

@JuanImbett @MarceloOrtizM1 I see that this is difficult to include in a firm-level DD (or requires several assumptions) but relevant for the study's implications. So far, the DD treats taxes paid as money that is lost to the world if I understand you correctly.

@FNG_eV Dass das @FNG_eV sich so darüber ärgert, wenn jemand die Investment von Fonds transparent macht, die sich nachhaltig nennen, finde ich sehr befremdlich. Klar tun Nachhaltigkeitsfonds mehr als nur Aktien zu selektieren. Das ist aber eben nicht Teil der rein deskriptiven Studie.