評(píng)論
打印
Economists are sceptical of taxing other forms of capital,
經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)家對(duì)于其他形式的資本征稅持懷疑態(tài)度，
for the good reason that it discourages investment.
而理由也很充分：會(huì)影響投資。
But capital's share of rich-world GDP has risen by four percentage points since 1975,
但自1975年以來，在富裕國家，資本所占GDP的份額已增長了4個(gè)百分點(diǎn)，
transferring nearly $2trn of annual global income out of paycheques and into investors'pockets.
約2萬億美元的全球年收入，由工資輾轉(zhuǎn)騰挪進(jìn)了投資者的腰包。
Given that competition is declining in many markets,
鑒于很多市場的競爭正減弱，
this suggests that businesses are increasingly able to extract rents from the economy.
可以得出企業(yè)從經(jīng)濟(jì)中榨取租金的能力正在增強(qiáng)。
Taxes on capital can target those rents without disturbing incentives so long as they include carve-outs for investment.
資本稅可以這些租金為目標(biāo)，只要包括為投資而生的股權(quán)分拆，繳稅激勵(lì)就不會(huì)減弱。
To stop companies shifting profits, governments should switch their focus from firms to investors.
為防止公司轉(zhuǎn)移利潤，政府應(yīng)該把注意力從公司轉(zhuǎn)移到投資者。
Profits ultimately flow to shareholders as dividends and buy-backs.
利潤最終會(huì)以股息或回購的形式流向股東。
But few people are likely to emigrate to avoid taxes on their investment income—
但很少有人為在其投資收入上避稅而移民——
Apple can move its intellectual property to Ireland, but it cannot put its shareholders there.
蘋果公司可以將知識(shí)產(chǎn)權(quán)移到愛爾蘭，但卻不能將股東也移到那兒。
Corporate tax should be a backstop, to ensure that investors who do not pay taxes themselves, such as foreigners and universities, still make some contribution.
企業(yè)稅應(yīng)成為后盾，來保障外國人、高校這些自身不用交稅的投資者也能為稅收做些貢獻(xiàn)。
Full investment expensing should be standard;
投資總額應(yīng)作為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)；
deductions for debt interest, which incentivise risky leverage for no good reason, should be scrapped.
對(duì)債務(wù)利息的減免應(yīng)取消，這種減免無緣無故刺激高風(fēng)險(xiǎn)杠桿，應(yīng)被廢棄。
As the labour market continues to polarise between high earners and everyone else,
隨著勞動(dòng)市場繼續(xù)在高收入者和其他人之間分化，
income taxes should be low or negative for the lowest earners.
最低收入者的所得稅應(yīng)該更低或成為負(fù)賦稅。
That means getting rid of regressive payroll taxes which, in North America, could be replaced with underused taxes on consumption.
這意味著要廢除遞減的工資稅，而在北美，這一稅種可能會(huì)被未充分利用的消費(fèi)稅所取代。
Though these are also regressive, they are much more efficient.
這種消費(fèi)稅盡管也是遞減的，但卻更高效。
Adam Smith said that taxes should be efficient, certain, convenient and fair.
亞當(dāng)·斯密認(rèn)為稅收應(yīng)高效、確實(shí)、便利和公平。
Against that standard, today’s tax policies are unforgivably cack-handed.
今天的稅收政策與這一標(biāo)準(zhǔn)恰恰相反，可謂愚蠢不可原諒。
Politicians rarely consider the purpose and scope of taxation.
政客們很少考慮稅收的目的和范圍。
When they do change tax codes, they clumsily bolt on new levies and snap off old ones, all in a rush for good headlines.
當(dāng)政客改變稅法時(shí)，會(huì)笨拙地開征新稅，棄用舊稅，這都是為了急于彰顯自己的功績。
Rewriting the codes means winning over sceptical voters and defying rapacious special interests.
而重新制定這些規(guī)則意味著要贏得持懷疑態(tài)度選民的選票，且無視貪婪的特殊利益集團(tuán)。
It is hard work.
這并非易事。
But the prize is well worth the fight.
但為了最后成果值得一搏。
譯文由可可原創(chuàng)，僅供學(xué)習(xí)交流使用，未經(jīng)許可請(qǐng)勿轉(zhuǎn)載。
