经济学人：解决英国预算的最佳方法

《经济学人》20221112文章翻译

The best ways to fix Britain’s budget

解决英国预算的最佳方法

Controlling pensions spending and taxing property arethe right answers

控制养老金支出和征收财产税是正确答案

On November 17th Jeremy Hunt, Britain’s

chancellor, will unveil the most austere tax-and-spending measures since 2010. The tightening

could be worth nearly £55bn per year ($62bn, 2.5% of GDP)—or about a

billion pounds for each day since Liz Truss’s disastrous government lost the

confidence of financial markets by promising huge unfunded tax cuts. To regain

credibility, Britain must now ensure that its debt-to-GDPratio starts falling within fiveyears.

11月17日，英国财政大臣杰里米-亨特将公布自2010年以来最紧缩的税收和支出措施。这项紧缩措施每年可能价值近550亿英镑（620亿美元，占GDP的2.5%）--自从利兹-特拉斯的灾难性政府因承诺巨额无资金支持减税而令金融市场丧失信心，该数额为每天大约10亿英镑。为了重获信用，英国现在必须确保其债务与GDP的比率在五年内开始下降。

Where the axe falls matters. Britain is fragile. Afterrecent rises in energy prices, real wages are barely higher than they were in2007. For years the economy’sgrowth ratehasbeendismal, a problem madeworse by Brexit, which is chipping away atproductivity.In the other G7 economies, public and private investment is forecast toadd up to 22-26% of GDP in 2022; in Britain the figure is just 17%.

斧头落在哪里很重要。英国是脆弱的。在最近的能源价格上涨之后，实际工资仅略高于2007年的水平。多年来，英国的经济增长率一直低迷，英国脱欧使这一情况雪上加霜，它削弱着生产力。在其他G7经济体中，2022年公共和私人投资预计将达到GDP的22-26%；而在英国，这一数字仅为17%。

Taxes as a share of GDP are at their highest in

nearly four decades. But this is because an ageing population has pushed up

spending and slowed growth, not because public services are lavish. In fact, afterthe sharp cuts of the 2010s, many are in adreadful state.The Conservatives have alreadypared back welfare spending in real terms; many poor households are acutely

vulnerable to high energy and

food prices.

税收占GDP的比重达到近40年来的最高水平。但这是因为人口老龄化推高了支出，减缓了增长，而不是因为公共服务很奢侈。事实上，经过2010年代的大幅削减，许多公共服务处于一种糟糕的状态。保守党已经削减了实际的福利支出；许多贫困家庭极易受到能源和食品价格高企的影响。

Mr Hunt needs quick fixes, in other words, but he has

precious few available. Containing spending on public services, especially

health care, requires thoughtful and deep-rooted reform that reduces costs and

encourages innovation. It cannot be done in a hurry. Cuts to capital spending

would harm long-term growth. And the higher taxes rise, the more important it

is that the tax system is calibrated to minimise damage to the economy. Throttling spending andraising taxes across the board would be counterproductive. Instead, Mr Huntshould be highly selective about how he plugs the hole in the budget.

换句话说，亨特先生需要立竿见影，但他的可用资源很少。 控制公共服务支出，特别是医疗保健支出，需要进行深思熟虑和深度的改革，以降低成本和鼓励创新。 这不能一蹴而就。削减资本支出将损害长期增长。税收越高，调整税收制度以尽量减少对经济的损害就越重要。全面限制支出和提高税收将适得其反。相反，亨特先生必须在填补预算漏洞的措施上慎之又慎。

Take spending cuts as an example. Only one part of the

welfare state grew substantially more generous during the 2010s: the state

pension. It is protected by a “triple lock” formula, whereby it rises each year

by the highest of average earnings growth, consumer-price inflation or the arbitrary figure of 2.5%. Asa result, it has grown by 8% in real terms since 2010, even as working-agewelfare shrank and wages stagnated. It is a near-universal benefit, so manyretired households with substantial private income and wealth benefit from thisgenerous uprating.

以削减开支为例。在 2010 年代，政府福利中只有一部分变得更加慷慨：国家养老金。它受到“三重锁”公式的保护，即每年以平均收入增长、消费者价格通胀或任性数字 2.5% 三者中的最高值上涨。 其结果是，自2010年以来，尽管劳动年龄红利减少，工资停滞不前，它的实际价值增长了 8%。这是一项近乎普及的福利，因此许多拥有大量私下收入和财富的退休家庭都从这种慷慨的升级中受益。

On its current trajectory the state pension bill, as a share

of GDP, will grow by 29%

by the middle of the century. The triple lock was suspended in 2021, because of

the pandemic. It should be permanently scrapped and replaced with a rule

ensuring that spending on the state pension, as a share of GDP, does not grow.

That would both free up money and give coddled pensioners a stake in promoting economic growth.

按照目前的轨迹，到本世纪中叶，国家养老金支出占 GDP 的比例将增长 29%。 由于疫情，三重锁定于 2021 年暂停。它应该被永久废除，取而代之的是一项规则，确保国家养老金支出占GDP的份额不会增长。这既可以释放资金，也可以让受宠溺的养老金领取者参与促进经济增长。

Replacing the triple lock will eventually save a huge

amount of money but it will take time, especially because the poorest

pensioners need to be protected during the energy crisis. Big tax rises are

therefore inevitable. There are few good options, but one leaps out: taxing thepriciest properties moreheavily.

更换三重锁最终将节省大量资金，但这需要时间，特别是因为在能源危机期间需要保护最贫困的养老金领取者。 因此，大幅增税不可避免。好的选择很少，但有一个显而易见的：对最贵的房产征更重的税。

Property levies are among the most friendly to economic

growth. Yet Britain’s main tax on homes is still based on relative property

valuations from 1991 and is regressive. House prices in the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea are eight timesthe national average, but even the most expensive homes there incur annual“council tax” of just £2,700, less than double the national average. A higherinheritance-tax threshold for housing wealth—probably Britain’s stupidest taxpolicy—encourages the elderly to remain in family-sized homes in order to passthem on in their wills tax-free.

房产税是最有利于经济增长的税收之一。 然而，英国对房屋征收的主要税仍是基于 1991 年以来的相对财产估值，并且是递减的。伦敦肯辛顿和切尔西区的房价是全国平均水平的 8 倍，但即使是那里最昂贵的住宅，每年的“议会税”也仅为 2,700 英镑，不到全国平均水平的两倍。更高的房产继承税起征点——可能是英国最愚蠢的税收政策——鼓励老年人继续住在家庭规模的房屋中，以便在他们的遗嘱中免税。

The present system is so broken that an annual tax of

around 0.5% on current property values could replace all the government’s

existing property levies while giving most people a tax cut, and still raise

more money. The extra inheritance-tax exemption for property should also be

scrapped, and loopholes in the inheritanceand capital-gains tax systems ought to be closed.

目前的制度已经支离破碎，每年对当前房产价值征收约0.5%的税就可以取代所有现行的房产税，同时给大多数人减个税，还能筹集到更多的钱。对房产的额外遗产税豁免也应该被取消，遗产税和资本利得税制度中的漏洞也应该被堵上。

Yet the fiscal hole is so large that even this would not

be enough. Mr Hunt will also need to raise income, payroll or consumption

taxes. He should choose income tax. It is fairer than national insurance—a

payroll tax that does not apply to pensions—because taxes should reflect means, not age. And

unlike VAT, a consumptiontax, it will not boost near-term inflation. Freezing the amount workers canearn before tax (an exemption that, oddly, most benefits higher earners) isalso wise.

然而，财政漏洞如此之大，即使这样也不够。亨特先生还需要提高所得税、工资税或消费税。他应该选择所得税。它比国民保险(一种不适用于养老金的工资税)更公平，因为税收应该反映收入，而非年龄。与增值税(一种消费税)不同，它不会刺激短期通胀。稳住工人的税前收入(奇怪的是，这一豁免大多有利于高收入者)也是明智的。

Lamentably, the chances of Mr Hunt making the right

choices are slim. Pensioners and owners of expensive houses tend to vote Tory.

Thoughtless spending cuts are likely. So are tax gimmicks, such as restrictions on the amount

workers can save for retirement with taxes deferred—a policy that raises money today at the

cost of future revenues. Britain’s tax-and-spending system is full of such piecemeal distortions. If

the welfare state is to work in the years ahead, the economy will need less

short-sighted fiddling, more considered

reform of age-related spending and a growth-friendly approach to tax. Little

that Mr Hunt does will be popular. He could at least get the economics

right. ■

不幸的是，亨特先生做出正确选择的可能性很小。养老金领取者和豪宅拥有者倾向于投票给保守党。轻率的开支削减很可能发生。税收上的噱头也是如此，例如限制工人可以为退休储蓄的金额并延税——这是一项以牺牲未来收入为代价筹集资金的政策。英国的税收和支出体系充满了这种零敲碎打的扭曲。如果福利国家在未来几年还能发挥作用，那么经济就需要少一些短视的花招，多一些深思熟虑的与年龄相关的支出改革和有利于经济增长的税收方式。亨特先生所做的一切都不会受欢迎。但他至少可以把经济转上正轨。