2023考研英語閱讀零和爭論
Zero-sumdebate
零和爭論
Economists are rethinking the view that capitalshould not be taxed;
經濟學家正重新考慮是否要推翻不該對資本征稅的觀點。
Executives thunder that America s corporate-taxrates are to blame for economic weakness. MittRomney s campaign accuses Barack Obama ofwaging a war on capital. In fact, America staxation of capital is more murky thanconfiscatory. At 39.2% its top corporate rate is the rich world shighest but loopholes mean most companies end up paying 27.6%, similar to Britain seffective rate of 27.4% and below Germany s 31.6%. America s tax rate on capital gains, at15%, is lower than in many other countries. And if Mr Romney is the more ardent defenderof capital, both men agree on the need for reforms. This is less a battle, more a skirmish.
行政當局憤怒指出美國經濟疲軟應歸咎于公司企業所得稅率。米特羅姆尼發起一場運動指責奧巴馬掀起了對資本的戰爭。事實上，美國的資本稅與其用于沒收充公，不如說其使用含混不明。其最高企業所得稅稅率高達39.2%，居發達國家之首，不過由于存在漏洞，大多數公司最終支付的稅率為27.6%，接近于英國的實際稅率27.4%，低于德國的實際稅率31.6%。美國的資本利得稅稅率為15%，比很多國家都要低。盡管羅姆尼更熱衷于維護資本，他和奧巴馬都認為有必要進行改革。這不像一場戰爭，反而只是一場小爭論罷了。
The more interesting fight is going on within economics. For a generation, the profession smessage on capital taxes has been simple: the lower the better. Most economists wouldprefer no tax on capital income at all. This seeming fanaticism is rooted in sensible models,developed in the 1970s and 1980s and built on a pleasing simplicity. Taxation inevitablyinvolves trade-offs. Governments tax in order to fund public goods and limit inequality, buttaxes are no free lunch. People and businesses responda tax on carrots, say, reducescarrot consumptionand these responses distort the economy and may reduce its potentialgrowth rate.
經濟學內部發生了更有趣的爭執。一代以來，經濟學家對于資本稅的看法十分簡單：稅率越低越好。大多數經濟學家根本不支持對資本收入征稅。這種表面上的狂熱植根于一些實用模型，它們于20世紀70年代到80年代發展起來，其基本特征是簡潔，因此令人愉悅。稅收不可避免地涉及了交換。政府征稅是為了提供公共產品和限制收入不公，然而稅收并非免費的午餐。個人和企業會提供反響，例如，對胡蘿卜征稅會減少胡蘿卜的消費量，而這些反應使得經濟扭曲，并有可能減少經濟的潛在增長率。
In these models, inequality was seen as a problem of pay differences, best addressedthrough taxes on labour incomes. Taxes on capital were reckoned to have large costs.Capital, or savings invested in new production, raises future growth and consumption. If a taxon capital income discourages investment, that impact compounds indefinitely into thefuture. As a result, zero tax on capital income should be preferred, even by individuals whodon t earn any such income. Economists became vocal in calling for reduced tax rates, andpolicymakers responded. Top capital-income tax rates in America and Britain fell by morethan half from the 1950s to the 1980s. There is pressure to go further.
在這些模型中，人們認為收入的不一致導致出現了不公正，而解決這個問題的最好方法就是向勞力收入征稅。資本稅會產生巨額成本。資本，或者投入新生產的儲蓄能夠在未來帶來經濟增長和消費。若對資本收入征稅會減少投資，其影響將有可能滲入到未來。這么一來，人們更樂于選擇對資本收入征收零稅收，即使對于那些并沒有資本收入的人來說也是如此。經濟學家強烈呼吁削減稅率，并得到了政策制定者的回應。在20世紀50年代到80年代間，英美兩國的最高資本收入稅率下降了超過一半。若施加更多壓力，還能降得更多。
But some economists are questioning the prevailing view, not least because reductions incapital-tax rates appear to have delivered more inequality than growth. In a 2008 paper,Juan Carlos Conesa of Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona, Sagiri Kitao of the University ofSouthern California and Dirk Krueger of the University of Pennsylvania argued that taxingcapital was not a bad idea after all. Capital markets are imperfect, they observe, andhouseholds are unable to insure themselves against all of life s ups and downs. Taxing awaysome of the return to capital to provide social insurance against risks is appropriate.
不過一些經濟學家正在質疑這種盛行的觀點，其理由不僅僅是因為資本稅率的減少似乎并未帶來多少增長，反而擴大了不公正的發生。在一份2008年發布的論文上，巴塞羅那自治大學的Juan Carlos Conesa， 南加利福尼亞大學的Sagiri Kitao 以及賓夕法尼亞大學的Dirk Krueger爭論說，對資本收入絕不是一個壞主意。在他們看來，資本市場是不完美的，單個家庭自身無力保證能夠有效應對生命中的大起大落。因此通過征稅拿走一部分資本收益，用以提供社會保障和抵御風險是合情合理的。
That is because the growth costs of capital taxes are overestimated. The old models contendthat capital supply is highly sensitive to changes in tax policy, and that a zero tax rate isneeded to prevent capital from drying up over the long run. This looks unrealistic, theauthors reckon. Most capital-income taxes are paid by working-age adults saving forretirement, who will continue to save despite taxes. Stubborn savers make for a stablesupply of investment capital, limiting the impact of taxes on growth. In the authors estimation, a 36% capital-income tax rate is justified.
之所以發生這種情況，是因為資本稅收的增長成本被高估了。舊模型堅持認為資本供給對稅收政策的變化極其敏感，因此需要實行零稅收以防止長期里資本陷入枯竭。作者們認為，這種說法是不切實際的。大多數資本收入稅收是由在職成年人支付，用以積蓄養老，即便收稅他們仍然會維持這種儲蓄。堅定不移的儲蓄者保證了投資性資本的穩定供給，這樣就限制了稅收對于經濟增長帶來的影響。在作者的預計中，36%的資本收入稅率是公正的。
In a new NBER working paper, Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics andEmmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley poke different holes in theconventional view. The old models, they point out, ignore inheritances. In the real worldinheritances strongly influence income levels, particularly among the very rich. Mr Romneyrecently reinforced this very point by exhorting students to borrow from parents if necessary.Taxes on wages and salaries are inadequate to the task of limiting inequality because theypunish those who owe high incomes to greater ability and effort, rather than to inheritances.Messrs Piketty and Saez also question the scale of the threat to growth. They point to ratiosof capital to output, which are surprisingly stable over time despite tax swings. Their modelfinds that the optimal tax rate on inheritance could be 50-60% or more.
在一份新的美國國家經濟研究局的工作報告中，巴黎經濟學院的Thomas Piketty 和加利福尼亞大學伯克利分校的Emmanuel Saez 在傳統的觀點中找到了另外一些漏洞。他們指出，舊模型忽略了遺產的因素。在現實世界里，遺產強烈影響了收入水平，尤其是對于那些巨富來說更是如此。羅姆尼最近強調了這一點，他規勸學生們有必要的話可以向家長借錢。對工錢或薪水征稅不足以限制收入不公，因為這些稅收對因自身能力和努力工作而獲得高收入的人造成了損害，反而放過了因遺產而暴富的人。Messrs Piketty和Saez同樣質疑了經濟增長是否真的受到了那么大程度的威脅。他們顯示了資本對產量的比率，發現就算稅率變動，這一比率卻能長期保持平穩，令人驚異。他們的模型發現對遺產征收的最佳稅率能達到50%到60%，甚至更多。
Inheritance taxes are a minor source of government money, accounting for less than onepercentage point of the 8-9% of GDP in revenues that Messrs Piketty and Saez estimate israised by capital taxes. But taxing capital gains or corporate income, which is responsible formuch of the rest, is also justifiable, they say. The often-fuzzy line between income fromcapital and labour means a large gap in relative tax rates breeds tax avoidance. When wagetaxes are high and capital taxes are low, firms simply shift compensation from salaries tostock options and dividends, cutting revenue without boosting growth. All told, capital-taxrates as high or higher than those on labour may make sense, they think.
遺產稅只是政府收入中極小的一個來源，在國內生產總值中占的比例不超過8%到9%，據Messrs Piketty和Saez預計，征收資本稅還可以提高這一收入。他們說，就連對資本增值或者企業所得征稅，即資本稅包含的另一部分，也是合理的。資本收入和勞力收入之間的界限經常模糊不清，這樣在相對稅率上產生了很大的差距，容易滋生漏稅行為。若工資稅高，資本稅低，公司會將工資轉為股權和紅利，以此避免花費，這種行為減少了稅收收入，無益于推動經濟增長。他們認為，所有證據表明，資本稅率同勞力稅率一樣高或者比后者高一點或許是合理的。
Pressure valve
壓力閥
A recent paper by Emmanuel Farhi of Harvard University, Christopher Sleet and SevinYeltekin of Carnegie Mellon University, and Ivan Werning of the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology makes another argument against abolition. The authors point out that risinginequality is a destabilising political force, which may encourage future governments toexpropriate wealth through heavy taxation. That threat could discourage saving andinvestment now, something a weak economy cannot afford. Paradoxically, a progressivetax on capital in the present may lead to more investment by keeping inequality in checkand by convincing firms that their wealth is safe over the long term.
由哈佛大學的 Emmanuel Farhi，卡內基梅隆大學的Christopher Sleet 和Sevin Yeltekin 以及麻省理工學院的Ivan Werning發表的一篇論文中針對取消資本稅提出了另一項反證。這些作者指出，愈演愈烈的收入不公會造成政治不穩定，這樣就會促使政府在未來通過征收重稅來剝奪財富。這種威脅可能會對現在的儲蓄和投資產生不利影響，而該影響是當前疲軟的經濟所無法承受的。矛盾的是，現在對資本漸進地征稅或許會導致更多的投資，一方面，它能限制收入不公，另一方面，它可以使公司確信他們的財富在長期大部分都是安全的。
Fretting over high capital-tax rates still makes sense, not least because capital is highlymobile. If countries differ in their approach, firms may simply invest more in those withmore congenial rates. But from a global perspective, as inequality rises, having taxes oncapital income will look increasingly attractiveand, by some reckonings, more sensiblethan previously thought.
為了高資本稅率煩惱不堪仍然是有道理的，尤其是因為資本具有高度的流動性。如若各國采取的政策不同，那么公司或許會僅僅憑借國家稅率的友好程度選擇投資方向。然而站在全球視角上來看，對資本收入征稅看上去越來越吸引人了，并且在某些人看來，這比我們之前想的要合理多了。
Zero-sumdebate
零和爭論
Economists are rethinking the view that capitalshould not be taxed;
經濟學家正重新考慮是否要推翻不該對資本征稅的觀點。
Executives thunder that America s corporate-taxrates are to blame for economic weakness. MittRomney s campaign accuses Barack Obama ofwaging a war on capital. In fact, America staxation of capital is more murky thanconfiscatory. At 39.2% its top corporate rate is the rich world shighest but loopholes mean most companies end up paying 27.6%, similar to Britain seffective rate of 27.4% and below Germany s 31.6%. America s tax rate on capital gains, at15%, is lower than in many other countries. And if Mr Romney is the more ardent defenderof capital, both men agree on the need for reforms. This is less a battle, more a skirmish.
行政當局憤怒指出美國經濟疲軟應歸咎于公司企業所得稅率。米特羅姆尼發起一場運動指責奧巴馬掀起了對資本的戰爭。事實上，美國的資本稅與其用于沒收充公，不如說其使用含混不明。其最高企業所得稅稅率高達39.2%，居發達國家之首，不過由于存在漏洞，大多數公司最終支付的稅率為27.6%，接近于英國的實際稅率27.4%，低于德國的實際稅率31.6%。美國的資本利得稅稅率為15%，比很多國家都要低。盡管羅姆尼更熱衷于維護資本，他和奧巴馬都認為有必要進行改革。這不像一場戰爭，反而只是一場小爭論罷了。
The more interesting fight is going on within economics. For a generation, the profession smessage on capital taxes has been simple: the lower the better. Most economists wouldprefer no tax on capital income at all. This seeming fanaticism is rooted in sensible models,developed in the 1970s and 1980s and built on a pleasing simplicity. Taxation inevitablyinvolves trade-offs. Governments tax in order to fund public goods and limit inequality, buttaxes are no free lunch. People and businesses responda tax on carrots, say, reducescarrot consumptionand these responses distort the economy and may reduce its potentialgrowth rate.
經濟學內部發生了更有趣的爭執。一代以來，經濟學家對于資本稅的看法十分簡單：稅率越低越好。大多數經濟學家根本不支持對資本收入征稅。這種表面上的狂熱植根于一些實用模型，它們于20世紀70年代到80年代發展起來，其基本特征是簡潔，因此令人愉悅。稅收不可避免地涉及了交換。政府征稅是為了提供公共產品和限制收入不公，然而稅收并非免費的午餐。個人和企業會提供反響，例如，對胡蘿卜征稅會減少胡蘿卜的消費量，而這些反應使得經濟扭曲，并有可能減少經濟的潛在增長率。
In these models, inequality was seen as a problem of pay differences, best addressedthrough taxes on labour incomes. Taxes on capital were reckoned to have large costs.Capital, or savings invested in new production, raises future growth and consumption. If a taxon capital income discourages investment, that impact compounds indefinitely into thefuture. As a result, zero tax on capital income should be preferred, even by individuals whodon t earn any such income. Economists became vocal in calling for reduced tax rates, andpolicymakers responded. Top capital-income tax rates in America and Britain fell by morethan half from the 1950s to the 1980s. There is pressure to go further.
在這些模型中，人們認為收入的不一致導致出現了不公正，而解決這個問題的最好方法就是向勞力收入征稅。資本稅會產生巨額成本。資本，或者投入新生產的儲蓄能夠在未來帶來經濟增長和消費。若對資本收入征稅會減少投資，其影響將有可能滲入到未來。這么一來，人們更樂于選擇對資本收入征收零稅收，即使對于那些并沒有資本收入的人來說也是如此。經濟學家強烈呼吁削減稅率，并得到了政策制定者的回應。在20世紀50年代到80年代間，英美兩國的最高資本收入稅率下降了超過一半。若施加更多壓力，還能降得更多。
But some economists are questioning the prevailing view, not least because reductions incapital-tax rates appear to have delivered more inequality than growth. In a 2008 paper,Juan Carlos Conesa of Universitat Autnoma de Barcelona, Sagiri Kitao of the University ofSouthern California and Dirk Krueger of the University of Pennsylvania argued that taxingcapital was not a bad idea after all. Capital markets are imperfect, they observe, andhouseholds are unable to insure themselves against all of life s ups and downs. Taxing awaysome of the return to capital to provide social insurance against risks is appropriate.
不過一些經濟學家正在質疑這種盛行的觀點，其理由不僅僅是因為資本稅率的減少似乎并未帶來多少增長，反而擴大了不公正的發生。在一份2008年發布的論文上，巴塞羅那自治大學的Juan Carlos Conesa， 南加利福尼亞大學的Sagiri Kitao 以及賓夕法尼亞大學的Dirk Krueger爭論說，對資本收入絕不是一個壞主意。在他們看來，資本市場是不完美的，單個家庭自身無力保證能夠有效應對生命中的大起大落。因此通過征稅拿走一部分資本收益，用以提供社會保障和抵御風險是合情合理的。
That is because the growth costs of capital taxes are overestimated. The old models contendthat capital supply is highly sensitive to changes in tax policy, and that a zero tax rate isneeded to prevent capital from drying up over the long run. This looks unrealistic, theauthors reckon. Most capital-income taxes are paid by working-age adults saving forretirement, who will continue to save despite taxes. Stubborn savers make for a stablesupply of investment capital, limiting the impact of taxes on growth. In the authors estimation, a 36% capital-income tax rate is justified.
之所以發生這種情況，是因為資本稅收的增長成本被高估了。舊模型堅持認為資本供給對稅收政策的變化極其敏感，因此需要實行零稅收以防止長期里資本陷入枯竭。作者們認為，這種說法是不切實際的。大多數資本收入稅收是由在職成年人支付，用以積蓄養老，即便收稅他們仍然會維持這種儲蓄。堅定不移的儲蓄者保證了投資性資本的穩定供給，這樣就限制了稅收對于經濟增長帶來的影響。在作者的預計中，36%的資本收入稅率是公正的。
In a new NBER working paper, Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics andEmmanuel Saez of the University of California at Berkeley poke different holes in theconventional view. The old models, they point out, ignore inheritances. In the real worldinheritances strongly influence income levels, particularly among the very rich. Mr Romneyrecently reinforced this very point by exhorting students to borrow from parents if necessary.Taxes on wages and salaries are inadequate to the task of limiting inequality because theypunish those who owe high incomes to greater ability and effort, rather than to inheritances.Messrs Piketty and Saez also question the scale of the threat to growth. They point to ratiosof capital to output, which are surprisingly stable over time despite tax swings. Their modelfinds that the optimal tax rate on inheritance could be 50-60% or more.
在一份新的美國國家經濟研究局的工作報告中，巴黎經濟學院的Thomas Piketty 和加利福尼亞大學伯克利分校的Emmanuel Saez 在傳統的觀點中找到了另外一些漏洞。他們指出，舊模型忽略了遺產的因素。在現實世界里，遺產強烈影響了收入水平，尤其是對于那些巨富來說更是如此。羅姆尼最近強調了這一點，他規勸學生們有必要的話可以向家長借錢。對工錢或薪水征稅不足以限制收入不公，因為這些稅收對因自身能力和努力工作而獲得高收入的人造成了損害，反而放過了因遺產而暴富的人。Messrs Piketty和Saez同樣質疑了經濟增長是否真的受到了那么大程度的威脅。他們顯示了資本對產量的比率，發現就算稅率變動，這一比率卻能長期保持平穩，令人驚異。他們的模型發現對遺產征收的最佳稅率能達到50%到60%，甚至更多。
Inheritance taxes are a minor source of government money, accounting for less than onepercentage point of the 8-9% of GDP in revenues that Messrs Piketty and Saez estimate israised by capital taxes. But taxing capital gains or corporate income, which is responsible formuch of the rest, is also justifiable, they say. The often-fuzzy line between income fromcapital and labour means a large gap in relative tax rates breeds tax avoidance. When wagetaxes are high and capital taxes are low, firms simply shift compensation from salaries tostock options and dividends, cutting revenue without boosting growth. All told, capital-taxrates as high or higher than those on labour may make sense, they think.
遺產稅只是政府收入中極小的一個來源，在國內生產總值中占的比例不超過8%到9%，據Messrs Piketty和Saez預計，征收資本稅還可以提高這一收入。他們說，就連對資本增值或者企業所得征稅，即資本稅包含的另一部分，也是合理的。資本收入和勞力收入之間的界限經常模糊不清，這樣在相對稅率上產生了很大的差距，容易滋生漏稅行為。若工資稅高，資本稅低，公司會將工資轉為股權和紅利，以此避免花費，這種行為減少了稅收收入，無益于推動經濟增長。他們認為，所有證據表明，資本稅率同勞力稅率一樣高或者比后者高一點或許是合理的。
Pressure valve
壓力閥
A recent paper by Emmanuel Farhi of Harvard University, Christopher Sleet and SevinYeltekin of Carnegie Mellon University, and Ivan Werning of the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology makes another argument against abolition. The authors point out that risinginequality is a destabilising political force, which may encourage future governments toexpropriate wealth through heavy taxation. That threat could discourage saving andinvestment now, something a weak economy cannot afford. Paradoxically, a progressivetax on capital in the present may lead to more investment by keeping inequality in checkand by convincing firms that their wealth is safe over the long term.
由哈佛大學的 Emmanuel Farhi，卡內基梅隆大學的Christopher Sleet 和Sevin Yeltekin 以及麻省理工學院的Ivan Werning發表的一篇論文中針對取消資本稅提出了另一項反證。這些作者指出，愈演愈烈的收入不公會造成政治不穩定，這樣就會促使政府在未來通過征收重稅來剝奪財富。這種威脅可能會對現在的儲蓄和投資產生不利影響，而該影響是當前疲軟的經濟所無法承受的。矛盾的是，現在對資本漸進地征稅或許會導致更多的投資，一方面，它能限制收入不公，另一方面，它可以使公司確信他們的財富在長期大部分都是安全的。
Fretting over high capital-tax rates still makes sense, not least because capital is highlymobile. If countries differ in their approach, firms may simply invest more in those withmore congenial rates. But from a global perspective, as inequality rises, having taxes oncapital income will look increasingly attractiveand, by some reckonings, more sensiblethan previously thought.
為了高資本稅率煩惱不堪仍然是有道理的，尤其是因為資本具有高度的流動性。如若各國采取的政策不同，那么公司或許會僅僅憑借國家稅率的友好程度選擇投資方向。然而站在全球視角上來看，對資本收入征稅看上去越來越吸引人了，并且在某些人看來，這比我們之前想的要合理多了。
