| There is a 10 page rebuttal .. but if you insist I précis the killer points for you then: The first of two substantive changes the FT notes that greatly changes Pikettys European wealth trend would be the wealth estimate for Britain. The FT choose a Fig of 44% they have got from a wealth survey carried out by the ONS (Britains govt statistical office) - compared to Pikettys 71%. The 71% is from estate tax data from Britains tax authorities (HMRC) and is the same method used for the whole time-series. The FT take that historical time-series then drop the 44% ONS figure in for the most recent time points. So according to FT methods - Britain unlike the US and the rest of Europe has had declining inequality throughout its period of Thatcherite financial deregulation. This is just stupid. The second substantive difference the FT note is that Piketty should weight the 4 European series Britain, Sweden, France, Germany by the size of their economies rather than a straight average. He could but it only makes difference to the overall European trend if you accept their crazy estimate of declining British inequality. Otherwise Briatin is similar to the other 3 and it make no difference. Thats about the main points. |
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
The ONS was used as a result. Piketty relied on similar self-reported surveys for his US data.