特朗普稅改有利于富人

Just as Ronald Reagan’s landmark 1986 bipartisan tax reform increased simplicity, fairness and economic efficiency by broadening the tax base and reducing rates, today reform of the system has the potential to help American families and the economy.

羅納德•里根(Ronald Reagan)在1986年推出的得到兩黨支持的稅制改革，通過擴(kuò)大稅基和降低稅率提高了簡(jiǎn)單性、公平度和經(jīng)濟(jì)效率，與之一樣，今天稅制改革也存在幫助美國(guó)家庭和經(jīng)濟(jì)的可能性。

Properly designed, revenue-neutral reforms could help to offset the dramatic increases in inequality that have taken place over a generation, repair a business tax system that globalisation has rendered dysfunctional, reduce uncertainty and promote growth.

正確設(shè)計(jì)的收入中性的改革，可能有助于緩解二三十年來不公平程度的大幅提高，修復(fù)因全球化而功能失調(diào)的企業(yè)稅制度，降低不確定性，并促進(jìn)增長(zhǎng)。

Unfortunately, what we know of the intentions of the president-elect and congressional leadership suggest that they risk pushing through the most misguided set of tax changes in US history.

遺憾的是，根據(jù)我們對(duì)當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)和國(guó)會(huì)領(lǐng)導(dǎo)人的意圖的了解，他們有可能推行美國(guó)歷史上方向錯(cuò)得最嚴(yán)重的稅制改革。

The proposals from the presidential campaign, reiterated last week by President-elect Donald Trump’s choice for Treasury secretary, will massively favour the top 1 per cent of income earners, threaten an explosive rise in federal debt, complicate the tax code and do little if anything to spur growth.

總統(tǒng)競(jìng)選中的提議——上周當(dāng)選總統(tǒng)唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)對(duì)財(cái)長(zhǎng)的選擇實(shí)際上重申了這些提議——將極大地有利于收入最高的1%人群，可能導(dǎo)致聯(lián)邦債務(wù)爆炸性升高，把稅法變得更復(fù)雜，而對(duì)刺激增長(zhǎng)卻幾乎毫無作用。

A core principle agreed to by all in 1986 was that reform would not reduce the tax burden on high-income taxpayers. Reagan achieved this objective while reducing top marginal rates because he raised capital gains rates, scaled back investment incentives, increased corporate tax collection, curtailed shelters and left estate and gift taxes alone. Unfortunately, neither the Trump plan, nor the one put forward by Paul Ryan, speaker of the House of Representatives, provides for nearly enough base-broadening to finance all the high-end tax cutting they include.

1986年，各方都認(rèn)同的一條核心原則是，改革不得降低高收入納稅人的稅務(wù)負(fù)擔(dān)。里根在降低最高邊際稅率的同時(shí)實(shí)現(xiàn)了這一目標(biāo)，因?yàn)樗岣吡速Y本利得稅，降低了投資激勵(lì)，加強(qiáng)了企業(yè)稅征繳，限制了避稅，并且沒有觸碰遺產(chǎn)及贈(zèng)與稅。遺憾的是，無論是特朗普計(jì)劃、還是眾議院議長(zhǎng)保羅•瑞安(Paul Ryan)提出的計(jì)劃，都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不能足量擴(kuò)大稅基、以彌補(bǔ)對(duì)頂端人群的減稅。

Steven Mnuchin, Treasury secretary-designate, asserts there will be no absolute tax cut for the upper class because deductions would be scaled back. The rub is that totally eliminating all deductions for those with incomes over $1m would not even raise enough revenue to cover reducing their marginal tax rates from 39 to 33 per cent, let alone offset their benefit from huge rate reductions on business and corporate income, and the elimination of estate and gift taxes.

候任財(cái)長(zhǎng)史蒂芬•姆欽(Steven Mnuchin)聲稱，將不會(huì)對(duì)上層階層實(shí)施絕對(duì)減稅，因?yàn)榧{稅扣除將會(huì)減少。問題在于，即使完全取消針對(duì)100萬美元以上收入人群的納稅扣除，也無法增加足夠稅收、彌補(bǔ)他們的邊際稅率從39%降至33%造成的稅收減少，更不要說抵消他們從企業(yè)所得稅稅率大幅降低、以及遺產(chǎn)及贈(zèng)與稅取消中的受益。

Estimates of the Trump plan suggest that it will raise the average after-tax income of the 0.9 per cent of the population with incomes over $1m by 14 per cent, or more than $215,000. This contrasts with proposed tax cuts for those in the middle of the income distribution of $1,000, or about 2 per cent.

對(duì)特朗普計(jì)劃的估算顯示，收入在100萬美元以上的0.9%人口的平均稅后收入將增加14%(逾21.5萬美元)。與之相比，中等收入階層的擬議平均減稅額僅1000美元(約為稅后收入的2%)。

The repeal of estate and gift taxes is especially problematic because it would provide a window for the very rich to use gift and trust structures to ensure that their wealth passes without tax not just to their children but to their grandchildren and great grandchildren, regardless of subsequent legislation.

廢除遺產(chǎn)與贈(zèng)與稅的問題尤其大，因?yàn)檫@將為富豪提供一個(gè)窗口，可以利用贈(zèng)與或信托結(jié)構(gòu)確保他們的財(cái)富在不繳稅的情況下，不但傳給子女、而且傳給孫輩和重孫輩，無論隨后出臺(tái)何種法規(guī)。

The Reagan tax reform simplified the code by eliminating the need for rules distinguishing ordinary and capital gains income, because these were taxed at the same rate, and by doing away with industry-specific shelter provisions. In contrast, the Trump proposal creates sheltering opportunities by reducing to 15 per cent the tax rate on any income that can be characterised as coming from an incorporated entity. Rather than reducing targeted subsidies, it would establish a highly dubious 82 per cent credit — the highest in the world — for financial equity investments in infrastructure.

里根稅改簡(jiǎn)化了稅法，消除了制定區(qū)分普通收入和資本利得的規(guī)則的必要(因?yàn)閮烧哌m用相同稅率)，并廢除了行業(yè)特定避稅條款。相比之下，特朗普的稅改提議把任何可以劃為來自某個(gè)企業(yè)實(shí)體的收入的稅率都降至15%，創(chuàng)造了避稅機(jī)會(huì)。特朗普稅改不是降低定向補(bǔ)貼，而是對(duì)基建領(lǐng)域的金融股權(quán)投資提供高得難以置信的82%的稅收減免——為世界最高水平。

This would mean not only disproportionate tax reductions for the upper-income group that has seen its incomes rise most rapidly over the past generation. It would also mean grave damage to federal budget projections. The envisioned Trump tax cut is about the same size relative to the economy as the 1981 Reagan tax cut. It is worth remembering that Reagan, hardly a fan of reversing course or raising taxes, found it necessary to propose significant tax increases in 1982 and 1984 (the equivalent in today’s economy of $3.5tn over a decade) due to concerns about federal debt.

這么做，不僅讓在過去二三十年里收入增長(zhǎng)最快的高收入人群享受到過高的減稅，也意味著，聯(lián)邦預(yù)算將遭到嚴(yán)重沖擊。特朗普設(shè)想的減稅相對(duì)于經(jīng)濟(jì)的規(guī)模，跟1981年里根的減稅規(guī)模相仿。值得記住的是，出于對(duì)聯(lián)邦債務(wù)的擔(dān)憂，不喜歡出爾反爾或增稅的里根，在1982年和1984年發(fā)現(xiàn)有必要大幅增稅(相當(dāng)于在今天的經(jīng)濟(jì)中10年增稅3.5萬億美元)。

Today’s budget situation is much more worrisome. The baseline involves much higher levels of debt and deficits. Then the economy was suffering from a deep recession; now it approaches full employment. If extreme tax cuts are legislated in the next months, uncertainty about the federal budget and about further tax adjustments is likely to rise. Finally, I can find no basis in either economic history or logic for Mr Mnuchin’s claim that the proposed reforms would increase the economy’s growth rate from its current 2 per cent rate to the historical 3 to 4 per cent norm. Adult population growth has slowed by nearly a percentage point, the gains generated by more women entering the workforce have been exhausted, and it is far from clear why tax reform will hugely spur productivity growth.

現(xiàn)今的預(yù)算狀況令人擔(dān)憂得多。首先現(xiàn)在的債務(wù)和赤字高得多。其次，經(jīng)濟(jì)之前在深度衰退中掙扎，現(xiàn)在正接近充分就業(yè)狀態(tài)。如果未來幾個(gè)月里極端減稅措施成為法律，聯(lián)邦預(yù)算和進(jìn)一步稅收調(diào)整的不確定性可能會(huì)升高。最后，無論從經(jīng)濟(jì)史、還是從邏輯上，我都找不到支持姆欽言論的任何依據(jù)，他聲稱提議的稅改將把美國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)的增長(zhǎng)率從目前的2%提高到3%至4%的歷史正常水平。成年人口增長(zhǎng)率已下降了近一個(gè)百分點(diǎn)，女性進(jìn)入勞動(dòng)大軍帶來的紅利已被耗盡，稅改為何將極大刺激生產(chǎn)率提高，令人費(fèi)解。

Indeed, because the Trump proposal would redistribute after-tax income towards those most likely to save it, push up long-term interest rates because of debt pressures, increase uncertainty and the advantages of overseas production, it is as likely to retard growth as to accelerate it.

實(shí)際上，由于特朗普的提議將使稅后收入的再分配朝著最可能把收入存起來的人群傾斜，推高長(zhǎng)期利率(因?yàn)閭鶆?wù)壓力)，提高不確定性和海外生產(chǎn)的優(yōu)勢(shì)，該提議阻礙增長(zhǎng)和加快增長(zhǎng)的可能性同樣大。

In the 1980s, treasury secretary Don Regan said the first Reagan reform proposal was written on a word processor to signal the administration’s openness to negotiation and radical alteration. We should all hope the Trump administration follows Reagan’s approach on both tax policy principles and a commitment to bipartisan negotiation.

在1980年代，時(shí)任財(cái)長(zhǎng)唐•里甘(Don Regan)表示，里根的第一項(xiàng)稅改建議寫在一個(gè)文字處理機(jī)上，用來表明里根政府對(duì)于磋商和大幅修改的開放態(tài)度。我們都應(yīng)希望，特朗普政府在稅收政策原則和致力于兩黨協(xié)商方面，都采取里根式的做法。

The writer is Charles W Eliot university professor at Harvard and a former US Treasury secretary

本文作者是哈佛大學(xué)查爾斯•W•艾略特大學(xué)教授(Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard)，曾任美國(guó)財(cái)政部長(zhǎng)