一句话点评：米国富人要水深火热了吗？
2019.11.07
Taxing the rich: A way through the warren
A way through the warren
How to tax the rich
And how to limit the economic damage
标题：向富人征税:一种摆脱困境的方法
一种摆脱困境的方法
如何向富人征税
以及如何限制经济损失
- warren ： n. 养兔场；大杂院；拥挤的地区；这里代指困境
- the rich ：富人，有钱人
IMG20191105201624.png
DURING HIS lesser-known run for president, which began in 1999, Donald Trump proposed levying a wealth tax on Americans with more than
50m and of 3% on wealth above $1bn. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a prominent new left-wing congresswoman, has floated a top tax rate of 70% on the highest incomes.
唐纳德•特朗普(Donald Trump)从1999年开始竞选总统，曾提议对1000万美元以上的美国人征收财富税，当时他的知名度不那么高。他可能很快就会发现自己站在了问题的另一边。这是因为民主党人正在想办法向富人征税（笔者注：这是因为特朗普是共和党人，所以算是为在野党打广告？还是说民主党和共和党的理念冲突，这个暂时涉及到我的知识盲区，捂脸）。希望得到特朗普职位的参议员伊丽莎白·沃伦(Elizabeth Warren)呼吁对5000万美元以上的财富征收2%的年税，对10亿美元以上的财富征收3%的年税（笔者注：把这个女参议员说的跟舔狗一样，哈哈哈）。著名的新左翼国会女议员亚历山德里亚·奥卡西奥-科尔特斯(Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez)提出对最高收入人群征收70%的最高税率。
- run for president ： 竞选总统
-
Democrat ：美国民主党（Democratic Party）是美国两大主要资产阶级政党之一，“驴子”是民主党的党徽，驴党；
美国共和党(Republican Party United States) ，“大象”是共和党的标志，象党。特朗普是共和党人。
In one way these proposals are a relief. Left-wing Democrats have plenty of ideas for new spending—Medicare for all, free college tuition, the “Green New Deal”—that would need funding. Mainly because America is ageing, but also boosted by Mr Trump’s unfunded tax cuts, the debt-to-GDP ratio is already expected to nearly double over the next 30 years. If a future Democratic administration creates new spending programmes while maintaining existing ones, higher taxes will be necessary.
在某种程度上，这些提议是一种解脱。左翼民主党对于新的支出有很多想法——全民医疗保险，免费大学学费，“绿色新政”——这些都需要资金。主要是因为美国正在老龄化，但也受到特朗普无资金支持的减税政策的推动，债务占GDP的比率（应该有个专有名词，大概意思是这样吧）预计在未来30年将增长近一倍。如果未来的民主党政府在维持现有支出计划的同时提出新的支出计划，那么提高税收势在必行。
If revenues are to rise, there are good grounds to look first to the rich. Mr Trump’s tax cuts are just the latest change to have made life at the top more splendorous. Between 1990 and 2015 the real income of the top 1% of households, after taxes and transfers, nearly doubled. Over the same period middle incomes grew by only about a third—and most of that was thanks to government intervention. Globalisation, technological change and ebbing competition have all helped the rich prosper in recent decades. Techno-prophets fear that inequality could soon worsen further, as algorithms replace workers en masse. Whether or not they are right, the disproportionate gains the rich have already enjoyed could justify raising new revenues from them.
如果收入要增加，有很好的理由首先考虑富人。特朗普的减税政策带来的最新变化只是让顶层人的生活变得更加光鲜亮丽。从1990年到2015年，扣除税收和转移支付后（after taxes and transfers不知道怎么翻译好），最富有的1%家庭的实际收入几乎翻了一番。在同一时期，中等收入只增长了大约三分之一，而这主要是由于政府的干预。近几十年来，全球化、技术变革和日渐衰退的竞争都帮助了富人的繁荣。技术预言家们（Techno-prophet）担心，随着算法大规模取代工人（en masse说这是法语？），不平等可能很快进一步恶化。不管他们（技术专家？）是否正确，富人已经享有的不成比例的收益可以证明从他们（这个指的是）那里获得了新的收入。
- ground ：这里用的是“理由”的意思。
- Globalisation ：全球化
- disproportionate ：不成比例的
说两句：
穷者越穷，富者越富，典型的马太效应，没毛病，既得利益者占据了大量的生产资本，川普搞的这减税完全是劫贫济富啊，这报道给人感觉美国劳苦大众生活真·水深火热，哈哈哈。
Unfortunately, the proposed new schemes are poorly designed. Ms Warren’s takes aim at wealth inequality, which has also risen dramatically. It is legitimate to tax wealth. But Ms Warren’s levy would be crude, distorting and hard to enforce. A business owner making nominal annual returns of around 5% would see much of that wiped out, before accounting for existing taxes on capital. That prospect would squash investment and enterprise. Meanwhile, bureaucrats would repeatedly find themselves having to value billionaires’ art collections and other illiquid assets. Eight rich countries have scrapped their wealth taxes since 1990, often amid concerns about their economic and administrative costs. In 2017 only four levied them.
不幸的是，提议的新方案设计得很糟糕。沃伦小姐（前面那个参议员）的目标是急剧加剧的财富不平等问题。对财富征税是合法的。但沃伦小姐的税收方案却是粗暴、扭曲和难以执行的。如果一个企业主的名义年回报率在5%左右，那么在计入现有的资本税之前，他的大部分收入将会被抹去。这一前景将打击投资和企业。与此同时，官员们会反复发现（这个repeatedly不知道怎么翻译好），他们必须对亿万富翁的艺术品收藏和其他非流动资产进行估值。自1990年以来，八个富裕国家已经取消了他们的财富税，通常是因为担心他们的经济和管理成本。在2017年，只有四家征收了这些税。
重点单词：
proposed，legitimate，levy，crude，wipe out，billionaire
说两句：
理想丰满，现实骨感，富人们合理避税的手段多多，简单的通过工资条和账面收入来收税只会压榨辛苦工作的中层，而且羊毛出在羊身上，最后企业主会不会把额外交出的税收成本转移到其他羊毛上？这确实是个难题啊。
IMG20191105201712.png
There are better ways to raise taxes on capital. One is to increase inheritance tax, an inequality-buster that, though also too easily avoided, is relatively gentle on investment and work incentives when levied at modest rates. Another is to target economic rents and windfalls that inflate investment returns. Higher property taxes can efficiently capture some of the astronomical gains that landowners near successful cities have enjoyed. It is also possible to raise taxes on corporations that enjoy abnormally high profits without severely inhibiting growth. The trick is to shield investment spending by letting companies deduct it from their taxable profit immediately, rather than as their assets depreciate. (Mr Trump’s reform accomplished this, but only partially and temporarily.)
提高资本税还有更好的办法。一种是增加遗产税，这是一种消除不平等的方法，虽然也很容易避免，但在以温和的税率征收时，它在投资和工作激励方面相对温和。另一种方法是瞄准经济租金和意外之财，因为它们会推高投资回报。更高的财产税可以有效地从成功城市附近的土地所有者所享有的天文数字的收益中获取一部分。在不严重抑制增长的情况下，对享受异常高利润的企业增税也是可能的。这样做的目的是保护投资支出，方法是让企业立即从应税利润中扣除，而不是在资产贬值时扣除。(特朗普的改革做到了这一点，但只是部分和暂时做到了。)
重点单词：
inequality-buster，incentive，windfall，astronomical，depreciate
What about income tax? Ms Ocasio-Cortez’s boosters point out that a 70% levy is close to the rate that is said to maximise revenue in one notable economic study. In truth the study is notable because it is an outlier—one that ignores the benefits of entrepreneurial innovation or of workers improving their skills. France’s short-lived 75% top tax rate, which was scrapped at the end of 2014, raised less money than was hoped. America’s top rate of federal income tax is 37%; higher is clearly feasible, but it would be wise to keep change incremental.
所得税呢?奥卡西奥-科尔特斯女士的支持者指出，在一项有名的经济研究中，70%的税率接近于最大化收入的水平。事实上，这项研究之所以引人注目，是因为它是一个例外（特例？），忽视了企业创新或工人提高技能的好处。法国短命的75%最高税率在2014年底被废除，筹集的资金比预期的要少。美国最高的联邦所得税税率是37%；提高（所得税税率）显然是可行的，但明智的做法是保持增量变化。
重点单词：
booster，notable，entrepreneurial，short-lived，scrap，feasible，incremental
Although there is scope to raise taxes on the rich, they cannot pay for everything, if only because the rich are relatively scarce. One estimate puts extra annual revenue from Ms Ocasio-Cortez’s idea, which applies only to incomes above
12bn, or 0.3% of the tax take. Ms Warren’s proposal would raise $210bn a year, her backers say—but they assume, implausibly, limited avoidance and no economic damage. Ultimately, the price of ambitious spending programmes will be tax increases that are also far-reaching. The crucial point about a strategy for taxing the rich is to realise that it has limits.
尽管有向富人增税的余地，但仅仅因为富人相对稀缺，他们无法支付所有的费用。据估计，奥卡西奥-科尔特斯女士的想法可以带来额外的年收入，这一想法只适用于年收入超过1000万美元的人，大约为120亿美元，占税收的0.3%。 沃伦的支持者表示，她的提议每年将筹集2100亿美元资金——但他们的天真的（implausibly 难以置信的，这里翻译）认为，这里面只有有限的避税行为以及它（这种方法）不会造成经济损失。 最终，雄心勃勃支出计划的代价将是影响深远的增税。对富人征税策略的关键是要认识到它的局限性。
重点单词：
scope，scarce（区分scare），ultimately，implausibly，far-reaching
杂谈
怎么说呢，这种情况历史上太多了，不过正如文章中提到的，第一点是富人比其他阶层的人有更多的手段避税和转移资产，第二点如果不考虑后果直接扒光这些富人的财富无疑是饮鸩止渴，最好的办法还是把他们绑在国家利益的战车上，利益相关，荣辱与共，这样会刺激他们的积极性吧，当然最为重要的还是国家要靠税收手段来平衡财富，劫贫济富的事情还真的是多多啊。
在下也只是嘴炮，这种社科大佬都解决不了的问题，我这种口嗨最是欠打的。不过分析现在美国的经济结构，可以看出来搞实业的和玩金融的完全是失衡的，实业虽然见效慢，但是是实打实的创造价值，在下觉得玩金融的就是在巧妙的转移榨取他人的财富（当然也不能否认资本在扩大生产中的重要性），美国这么玩虚的金融经济，坑的就是全世界用美元结算这套体系的国家们，所以不要看美国富人的笑话，只要我们还在局里，大家都是羊毛。
总之，开心就好，也只能这样了，(/ω＼) ~
网友评论