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，通過擴大稅基和降低稅率提高了簡單性、公平度和經濟效率，與之一樣，今天稅制改革也存在幫助美國家庭和經濟的可能性。

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.

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

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，根據我們對當選總統(tǒng)和國會領導人的意圖的了解，他們有可能推行美國歷史上方向錯得最嚴重的稅制改革。

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)競選中的提議——上周當選總統(tǒng)唐納德•特朗普(Donald Trump)對財長的選擇實際上重申了這些提議——將極大地有利于收入最高的1%人群，可能導致聯邦債務爆炸性升高，把稅法變得更復雜，而對刺激增長卻幾乎毫無作用。

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，各方都認同的一條核心原則是，改革不得降低高收入納稅人的稅務負擔。里根在降低最高邊際稅率的同時實現了這一目標，因為他提高了資本利得稅，降低了投資激勵，加強了企業(yè)稅征繳，限制了避稅，并且沒有觸碰遺產及贈與稅。遺憾的是，無論是特朗普計劃、還是眾議院議長保羅•瑞安(Paul Ryan)提出的計劃，都遠遠不能足量擴大稅基、以彌補對頂端人群的減稅。

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.

候任財長史蒂芬•姆欽(Steven Mnuchin)聲稱，將不會對上層階層實施絕對減稅，因為納稅扣除將會減少。問題在于，即使完全取消針對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、以及遺產及贈與稅取消中的受益。

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.

對特朗普計劃的估算顯示，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.

廢除遺產與贈與稅的問題尤其大，因為這將為富豪提供一個窗口，可以利用贈與或信托結構確保他們的財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(因為兩者適用相同稅率)，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企業(yè)實體的收入的稅率都降至15%，創(chuàng)造了避稅機會。特朗普稅改不是降低定向補貼，而是對基建領域的金融股權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最快的高收入人群享受到過高的減稅，也意味著，聯邦預算將遭到嚴重沖擊。特朗普設想的減稅相對于經濟的規(guī)模，跟1981年里根的減稅規(guī)模相仿。值得記住的是，出于對聯邦債務的擔憂，不喜歡出爾反爾或增稅的里根，在1982年和1984年發(fā)現有必要大幅增稅(相當于在今天的經濟中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.

現今的預算狀況令人擔憂得多。首先現在的債務和赤字高得多。其次，經濟之前在深度衰退中掙扎，現在正接近充分就業(yè)狀態(tài)。如果未來幾個月里極端減稅措施成為法律，聯邦預算和進一步稅收調整的不確定性可能會升高。最后，無論從經濟史、還是從邏輯上，我都找不到支持姆欽言論的任何依據，他聲稱提議的稅改將把美國經濟的增長率從目前的2%提高到3%至4%的歷史正常水平。成年人口增長率已下降了近一個百分點，女性進入勞動大軍帶來的紅利已被耗盡，稅改為何將極大刺激生產率提高，令人費解。

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，推高長期利率(因為債務壓力)，提高不確定性和海外生產的優(yōu)勢，該提議阻礙增長和加快增長的可能性同樣大。

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，時任財長唐•里甘(Don Regan)表示，里根的第一項稅改建議寫在一個文字處理機上，用來表明里根政府對于磋商和大幅修改的開放態(tài)度。我們都應希望，特朗普政府在稅收政策原則和致力于兩黨協商方面，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查爾斯•W•艾略特大學教授(Charles W. Eliot University Professor at Harvard)，曾任美國財政部長