向富人增税：对经济增长是利是弊？ [美国媒体]

Tax hikes on the wealthy: Good or bad for growth?

向富人增税：对经济增长是利是弊？



【原文作者】Mark Thoma
【发表日期】2016年6月1日

Conservatives have argued for decades that tax cuts are the key to economic prosperity. And the tax plan presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump is pushing would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners by an average of approximately $1.3 million per year, embracing that conservative point of view.

几十年来，保守派坚持认为经济繁荣的关键在于减轻赋税。如果按共和党提名候选人Donald Trump提出的税收计划，仅占0.1%的顶层收入人群每人每年在税费上的支出将减少约130万美元，这一计划与保守派的观点不谋而合。

On the other hand, Democrats such as front-runner Hillary Clinton take another approach. Clinton says she'll reform the U.S. tax code so that the wealthiest pay their fair share. The response from Republicans has been predictable: They argue that such a tax plan will lower growth and harm the economy.

另一方面，民主党内大热的提名候选人Hillary Clinton则有不同的做法。Clinton称她将对美国税码进行改革，让那些顶层收入人群承担其公平份额。共和党人对此的回应不难预见：他们称该税收计划将减缓增长并对经济造成损害。

Do the conservative arguments against tax increases have any merit? Or are they, as Democrats claim, a way to serve an ideological goal of smaller government and reward wealthy Republican donors? Let's take a closer look.

保守派反对增税的理由究竟有没有可取之处？亦或者，像民主党人所说的那样，只是为达成小政府的意识形态目标而服务，顺带回报一下富有的共和党捐款人？现在让我们对这些（理由）做更进一步的了解。

Increasing taxes on the wealthy will harm economic growth: This argument is made frequently, along with the claim that increasing growth will lift all boats, but the evidence doesn't support either claim. As Nobel Prize-winning economist Peter Diamond and John Bates Clark medalist Emmanuel Saez have noted, since the 1970s no clear correlation exists between economic growth and top tax-rate cuts across Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries.

对富人增税将损害经济增长：这种说法我们经常能听到，与此说法一起出现的还有经济的持续增长将会让所有人的财富都随之水涨船高，然而现有证据都不支持以上两种说法。诺贝尔经济学奖得主Peter Diamond和约翰·贝茨·克拉克奖得主Emmanuel Saez曾指出，20世纪70年代以来，在经济合作与发展组织（OECD）各成员国内，经济增长与最高税率削减之间并无明显关联。

As for the trickle-down argument, this claim falls apart when you examine what happened to the distribution of income after tax cuts for the wealthy enacted during the Bush administration. Income of those at the top went up substantially, with no corresponding gain for those lower in the income distribution.

至于“涓滴效应”的理论，当你回头审视Bush政府所推行的减税政策对收入分配的影响之后，会发现这一主张根本站不住脚。顶层人士的收入大幅增加，与此同时低收入人群的收入水平却并未出现相应的增长。
【注：“涓滴效应”指在经济发展过程中并不给予贫困阶层、弱势群体或贫困地区特别的优待，而是由优先发展起来的群体或地区通过消费、就业等方面惠及贫困阶层或地区，带动其发展和富裕。】

Increasing taxes on the wealthy won't solve the income inequality problem: Higher taxes for the highest earners may not solve the problem, but it would help. Again, consider the tax cuts onthe wealthy enacted during the Bush years. In addition to not generating a positive trickle-down economic growth effect, those cuts contributed to the stunning increase in income inequality in recent decades. Raising taxes would have the opposite effect.

对富人增税不能解决收入不平等问题：对顶层收入人群增税也许不能解决这一问题，但会有助于解决这一问题。让我们再回想一下Bush在任那些年的减税政策吧。那些减税政策非但没有带来积极意义上的“涓滴经济”增长效应，还加剧了近十年来收入水平的差距。对富人增税也许会有另一种效果。

Tax increases will blunt the incentive to invest in new businesses: Decreasing taxes did not increase economic growth, so why would increasing taxes to levels they've been at in the past be harmful? In addition, it's hard to believe that a reduction in expected aftertax income of, say, 10 percent from $10 million to $9 million, or even from $300,000 to $270,000, would cause someone to pass on the investment opportunity.

增税会削弱富人投资新业务的动机：既然减税并没有让经济出现增长，那么将税率恢复到原有的水平，何来对经济造成伤害？此外，如果预期税后收入减少了10%，1000万收入变成了900万，或者从30万变成27万，富人们就因此而放弃投资机会，这听上去实在让人难以置信。

The wealthy will move to other countries to avoid the tax increase: A recent study examined the propensity of the rich to move between U.S. states in response to state tax increases. The lead author of the study, Cristobal Young of Stanford University, summarized the results by saying, "The most striking finding in our study is how little elites seem willing to move to exploit tax advantages across state lines."

富人将通过移居国外的方式进行避税：最近有一项研究，对富人们是否会因所在州增税而移居至国内其他州的倾向进行了调查。该研究的带头人，来自斯坦福大学的Cristobal Young，对研究结果进行了如下总结：“在该研究中，我们惊奇地发现，很少有精英人士愿意用移居其他州的方式来换取有利税率。”

If the wealthy aren't willing to move between states in response to tax differences, it seems even more unlikely that would undertake the far more difficult task of moving to another country.

既然富人们不愿意因税收差异而移居其他州，那么他们也更不会选择承担更多风险而移居国外了。

Increasing taxes on the wealthy won't increase tax revenue: The Laffer curve argument that increasing taxes will cause the wealthy to pursue tax-avoidance strategies or forego profitable opportunities to the extent that tax revenues actually fall has been examined again and again, and the message is clear. Tax avoidance may increase somewhat, but nowhere near enough to cause tax revenues to fall.

对富人增税不能增加税收收入：拉弗曲线理论问世至今已经历过一次又一次地检验，所传递出的信息十分明确，即富人会通过寻求避税策略或是放弃获利机会的方式来应对增税，这样一来，实际税收收入将会下降。避税行为会有所增加，但不足以导致税收收入下降。

Diamond and Saez have looked at this closely, and they found that the revenue-maximizing top federal marginal income tax rate would be in or near the range of 50 percent to 70 percent (taking into account that individuals face additional taxes from Medicare and state and local taxes).

Diamond和Saez曾对此进行过详细研究，发现当联邦边际所得税率最高值处在或接近50%至70%这一范围内时，才能实现收入的最大化（考虑到个人还会遇到一些额外税种，如医疗险、州税、地方税）。

Less will be donated to private charities: Would tax increases cause the wealthy to reduce their charitable giving? Research on this question suggests it's the other way around. Back in the 1970s, when the top rate of federal income tax was 70 percent, wealthier Americans (those with incomes of over $500,000 in 2007 dollars) gave around twice as much of their money to charity than they did in 2007, when the top rate had fallen to 35 percent.

私人慈善机构的受捐赠数额将会减少：增税是否会导致富人慈善捐款数额的减少？关于此问题的研究所得出的结论恰好与此相反。在20世纪70年代，当时的联邦所得税的最高税率达到了70%，富人们（按2007年美元币值来算他们的收入超过了50万美元）的慈善捐款数额是其2007年捐款额的两倍，而2007年时最高税率已经降至35%。

Why does this happen? When taxes are higher, the benefit of the tax deduction for charitable giving is also higher, so people tend to increase the amount they give. In addition, the wealthy give their biggest donations almost exclusively to universities and colleges, hospitals and medical centers, and arts institutions. They rarely make large gifts to social-service groups,grass-roots organizations or nonprofit groups that focus on the poor or minorities.

为何会出现这种情况？当税收增高时，相应的慈善捐赠所带来的税收减免优惠也更大，因此人们乐于增加捐款数额。此外，富人们的大部分捐赠基本都流向了高等院校、医疗机构、文艺机构。他们很少会将大笔款项捐赠给关注低收入和少数族裔群体的社会服务组织、基层组织或者非营利组织。

So to the extent that the increased tax revenue is used to support these groups, social welfare could benefit.

因此，在一定程度上，增加税收收入可以更好地扶持这些组织，社会福利将从中受益。

The wealthy deserve what they earn: This argument assumes that they're paid according to their contribution to society. But in a world of monopoly power, regulatory capture and a symmetric power relationships in bargaining over the wage and profit shares of business earnings, the presumption that those at the top of the income distribution earned their income flies out the window.

富人挣来的钱都是他们应得的：这一理论假设富人们是因其对社会的贡献而获得的报酬。但现实却是，在商业收入的报酬和利润分成拉锯战中，充斥着垄断势力、规制俘获和不对称的权利关系，因而顶层收入人群获得的是其应得的报酬这个假设不成立。

If we assume that fairness is defined as keeping what you contribute to the social good (what economists would call the value of their marginal product), and no more than that, such fairness would compel us to take the income the wealthy earn in excess of their contribution to the social good.

如果我们假设，公平的定义是保持对社会的贡献（经济学家称之为“边际产品价值”），除此外没有其他因素，这样的公平将促使我们向富人要回超出他们对社会贡献的那部份收入。
【注：边际产品价值（VMP）是指在其他条件不变的前提下，厂商增加一单位要素投入所增加的产品的价值。】

Where should that income go? Substantial evidence shows that wage earners have earned less than their marginal products in recent decades. So under the principle that people should have an income equal to what they contribute, fairness would suggest that we redistribute to underpaid wage earners some of the income the wealthy earn in excess of their contribution, either through direct payments, tax adjustments or spending on social programs that benefit lower-income households.

收入该如何进行分配？已有切实证据表明，近十年来，工薪阶层所得到的报酬低于他们的边际产量。人们的报酬应该与他们的贡献相匹配，在这一原则下，公平要求我们应该将超出富人贡献那部份的收入进行重新分配给未获足额报酬的工薪阶层，既可以直接支付或是调整税率，也可以把这些资金投入可使低收入家庭获益的社会事业中去。
【注：边际产量（MP）是指增加一个单位可变要素投入量所增加的产量。即：增加一个单位的劳动投入所带来的总产量的增加量。】

It's a tax on small businesses: The number of small-business owners that would be affected by a tax increase on incomes over $250,000 is fairly small. For example, an analysis of President Obama's proposal in 2009 to increase the rates for those in the top two tax brackets would affect only 1.9 percent of small businesses.

对富人增税会给小企业增加负担：对收入超过25万美元的富人进行增税，会受此影响的小企业主的数量实在太少。例如，有分析指出，2009年Obama总统曾提议对前两个纳税等级人群提高税率，受此影响的小企业主数量比例仅为1.9%。

Many of those who would be affected are investors in the businesses who play no role at all in day-to-day management. And they could always escape the tax completely by filing as corporations. You also have to wonder how many people would choose to give up their businesses if their incomes were only, say, $350,000 due to a tax increase.

受影响的人中绝大多数只是商业投资者，他们并不参与企业的日常管理。而且他们如果想要避开增税也很容易，只需将个人收入归为公司收入就行了。人们不禁要怀疑了，究竟会有多少人因为收入达到了35万美元要被增税而放弃自己的生意呢？

Arguments about the size of government and the taxes needed to support the many things that government does are certainly fair game for politicians. But the argument that tax increases on the wealthy will cause substantial harm to the economy does not withstand a close look at the evidence.

关于政府规模和运作政府所需要的税收收入之类的争论显然是政客们之间的公平博弈。而向富人增税会严重损害经济的这一理论，在我们对这些证据进行仔细分析后，显然是不成立的。


GRINGOOR June 3, 2016 2:2PM
Finally,...a respectable article by CBS that actually rings true.  Clearly increasing taxes on the wealthy is a no-brainer and will be good for main street America.

终于能在哥伦比亚广播公司（CBS）读到一篇说实话的文章了。向富人增税是件明摆着的好事，对美国普通老百姓有利的一件事。

PARABELLEM1 June 3, 2016 0:12PM
Anyone with any common sense can clearly see that Thoma used 1 data point.... that's right, one data point.... a single presidential administration. What nonsense. In order to properly uate the validity of the claims, you can not use a paucity of a select subset of the data to contrive a conclusion packaged as fact. This is at best a very disingenuous representation of the effect tax policy has over multiple administrations. If the author would have done his research properly, and even just researched the sheer abundance of historical evidence by Dr. Thomas Sowell, the claims that he believes he's debunked would all be validated as true. Lazy consumers of "analsis" by the media will always be duped into believing the falsehoods they purport as true, and will fail to recognize the slight of hand administered here by Thoma. Stop spouting talking points (flat-out lies) from the left, and do your homework Mr. Thoma!

但凡有点常识的人都能看出来作者（Thoma）只用了一个数据点……没错，一个数据点……单独一届总统任期。简直就是胡说八道。为了评估主张的有效性，你不能用少量的数据的选择子集来设法将一个结论包装成一个事实。这个顶多是个税收政策效应的虚伪表象，很多届政府都有这个情况。如果作者能用正确的方法来完成他的研究，甚至只需要研究下Thomas Sowell博士留下来的大量历史证据，不管是他所支持的还是所要揭穿的主张，都将会被证实为事实。被媒体所谓“分析”忽悠的懒人总是对谎言深信不疑，他们也察觉不到作者在文中使用的欺骗性手段。Thoma先生，停止谈论你的左派观点（不折不扣的谎言），多做些研究再发言吧！

CSPARISH1956@ PARABELLEM1 June 3, 2016 11:11PM
Indeed!! Just a cornucopia of double speak to cloud what is clearly a well written article. Some people will stoop to anything to continue the lies going on.

没错！！一群两面派对天大喊这真是一篇好文章。有些人将不择手段地将谎言继续流传下去。

SISTER SALLY June 3, 2016 4:4AM
First off, the real wealthy don't provide jobs for anyone. They are busy making their trust funds richer, via the stock markets and bond issues.
The next set of wealthy provide a few jobs, but are also trying to do like the above do.
After that, yes then some more jobs are provided to the masses. But look real close to WHO sent the jobs overseas.
Our whole economic system has taken a turn, some parts for the worse, some for the better. Depends on what your education is, and what field you are working in.
Crying about cutting taxes for the rich is pure crap. Those elected politicians, will cut education to make up for the state budget shortfalls.
Look at most of the red states down south, then look at Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Kansas, and Illinois. All governed by the GOP, and all have failed to help the average citizen.
In fact, the governor of Michigan is now under charges from the RICO act. I have a feeling that Wisconsin's governor will be the next one to be charged under the RICO laws.

首先，真正的富人不会为任何人提供就业机会。他们正忙着壮大自己的信托基金，通过炒股和发行债券的方式。
另一些富人提供了一些就业机会，但他们也在试着做和上面提到的富人一样的事。
那之后，确实有更多的工作机会被摆到了大众面前。但这些富人却让工作流到了海外。
整个经济体系已经发生了转变，有差的转变，也有好的转变。这与你的受教育程度和所处行业有关。
哭着喊着给富人减税纯属扯淡。当州财政预算短缺的时候，民选的政客会减少对教育的投入来填补空缺。
看看南部的红色州，再看看密歇根州、威斯康星州、印第安纳州、堪萨斯州、伊利诺斯州。它们都是在共和党治下的州，在改善大众民生方面毫无建树。
事实上，密歇根州州长现在因触犯《反诈骗腐败组织集团犯罪法》（RICO）遭到了指控。我有预感，威斯康星州州长也将因触犯此法而遭到指控。
【注：红州与蓝州是指美国近年来选举得票数分布的倾向。红州较支持共和党，蓝州则较支持民主党。】

PARABELLEM1@ SISTER SALLY June 3, 2016 0:12PM
you are an idiot. One question for you. did you ever get a job from a poor person? Neither party helps anyone. they are all opportunistic politicians who know not a flip about economics, nor can or do they have any ability to understand how the economy works. When 80% of our legislators are degreed lawyers, all we get is a cascade of stupid laws and that only harm and restrain the economy and the private sector.

你这个白痴。问你个问题。你从穷人那里得到过工作机会吗？民主党和共和党不会给谁提供工作。他们都是些投机政客，既看不懂经济，也没那本事了解经济是怎样运行的。当80%的立法者都是有学历的律师时，我们将不得不面对一大堆愚蠢的法律条款，那只会对经济和私营部门造成损害和阻碍。

CSPARISH1956@ PARABELLEM1 June 3, 2016 11:11PM
I think the title of "idiot" is clearly owned by you. And your tone is unacceptable. Just another obtuse person, who thinks they can get away with anything on the Internet.

我觉得你更配得上“白痴”这个头衔。你的口气让人很不爽。又是一个蠢人，总以为在网上就可以无所顾忌了。

EA POE June 3, 2016 1:1AM
"closer look at the evidence"...what evidence? This is nothing but opinion...and badly formed opinion at that. More biased propaganda the MSM tries to pawn off as "factual news". And they wonder why nobody trusts them...

“对这些证据进行仔细分析”……什么证据？除了观点还有什么……而且还是个错误的观点。主流媒体正试着将片面宣传材料包装成“时事新闻”来到处兜售，有时还会困惑为什么我们都不相信他们……

DODINY@EA POE June 3, 2016 3:3AM
There was plenty of hard historical evidence presented in the article Einstein

在Einstein的文章里有大量详实的历史证据。

PARABELLEM1@ DODINY@EA POE June 3,2016 1:1PM
EA POE is right. There is one set of data, conveniently paired to the Bush administration. In order for any analysis to have merit, it has to span a series of data sufficient enough to make a statistical sample size. This author did not do that, thus rendering a lazy attempt at justifying his leftist opinion by cherry-picking the data. Don't be a fool by reading as fact anything that is peddled as "analysis" by the media.

EA POE说得对。这里有一组数据恰好与布什时期的数据相匹配。任何分析结果若要有价值，就必须拥有一系列充足的数据，才可以形成一个数据样本。本文作者并没有做到这一点，文中作者只是随意挑选了一些数据来为其左派思想辩护。不要被媒体所兜售的所谓“分析”给愚弄了。

CSPARISH1956@ PARABELLEM1@ DODINY@EA POE June 3, 2016 11:11PM
Sure, we'll all turn to you, a self appointed financial expert. What a crock!

是是是，我们都应该向你求助，自以为是的财务“砖家”。简直一派胡言。

RIVERSIDEKIM June 2, 2016 11:11AM
I have worked from 1987 to 2007 and I am 44. What I have seen from wealthy business owners and wealthy people who work for them is that they spend ALMOST ALL of the money on THEMSELVES with lavish vacations, shopping sprees, fine dining, and endless mani-pedi's. The children wear name-brand clothes and every gadget they desire. Sportscars and boats also top the list.  This money is not going going back into the workforce by paying people better wages or retirement benefits, but on to luxury goods. So yes, I think that the wealthy over $100,000 a year should be taxed as much as the rest of us in the poverty, low, and middle class.
I have a degree and have tried to make good career decisicons, but I still don't make $12 hr, don't have medical benefits, and no retirement benefits because NOT one employer in 10 years has offered it. Most Americans are in the same shape as myself. If I was rich I would not mind contributing and I try to help my local homeless and veterans when I can...eventhough I make $1750 before taxes, I am lucky to bring home $1275 a month after taxes.

我今年44岁，在1987年至2007年间参加工作。有钱的企业家和他们的下属，依我所见，通常将所有财富几乎都花在了个人享受上：挥金如土的假期、疯狂的购物、美食以及美甲。他们的孩子穿着名牌服饰，想要的电子设备统统都有。跑车和游艇更是排在购物清单的首位。这些钱不可能用来给员工涨薪和增加退休福利，只会流向奢侈品行业。因此，我认为年收入超过10万美元的富人所缴税额应等于贫民，低收入和中等收入阶层所缴税额的总和。
我有学位，也曾努力做好职业选择，但我仍无法挣到12美元的时薪，没有医疗福利，没有退休福利，我工作的10年里没有雇主愿意在这些方面花钱。大多数美国人和我有着同样的境遇。如果我是一个有钱人，我不介意把钱捐出来帮助当地的流浪者和退伍老兵，当然是在我有能力的前提下……即便我的税前薪水是1750美元，但幸运的是缴完税后我还能到手1275美元。

CATNONTX@ RIVERSIDEKIM June 2, 2016 0:12PM
Jealous much?

羡慕嫉妒恨了？

CSPARISH1956@CATNONTX@ RIVERSIDEKIMJune 3, 2016 11:11PM
Stupid much?

秀智商来了？

PARABELLEM1@RIVERSIDEKIM June 3, 2016 1:1PM
Then stop picking the wrong employers! I too have worked for the "look at me" class of business" professionals" and yes, there is scum out there. Be more selective..... there are 1000's of companies run the right way by creating value for their customers, and not just for themselves.

以后擦亮眼睛，别再挑错老板了！我也曾经有过为那类爱炫耀的商人打工的经历，商人中确实会有人渣存在，但更多的还是经过了优胜略汰……成百上千家的公司正走在正确的道路上，努力为客户创造价值而不是仅仅考虑自身。

CSPARISH1956@PARABELLEM1@RIVERSIDEKIMJune 3, 2016 11:11PM
Some people live in small communities, and the choices are limited. Man! You post a lot of questionable "information"!

老兄，要知道有些人的生活圈子很小，根本没多少可供选择的余地！你写的那些话有问题！

CATNONTX June 2, 2016 10:10AM
America - the land of the jealous where if your neighbor has more than you do then you probably support a law forcing the government to take from them to give to you.

嫉妒之心深埋于美国社会生活之中，一旦发现周围邻里比自己更有钱，便总想推动某项立法，迫使政府将富人的钱抢过来，瓜分进自己口袋里。

SEETHEBIGPICTURE@CATNONTX June 2, 2016 10:10AM
Kind of interesting that the extreme wealthy probably do not have many in the military, yet the average American enlists and protects the rights of the extreme wealthy to live and flourish here in the USA.

有趣的是，超级富豪没几个在军队服役的，倒是普通美国人应征入伍，保护着这些人能安心在美国居住和大发横财。

CATNONTX@SEETHEBIGPICTURE June 2, 2016 10:10AM
Hasn't that always historically been the case in every nation and every time period?

从历史角度看，任何国家在任何时期都是这种情况的吧？

SEETHEBIGPICTURE@CATNONTX June 2, 2016 10:10AM
True. I did read in Hawaii history the leader of the losing battle had to jump off a cliff to his death.

没错。我读过夏威夷历史，他们的领袖在战败后会跳崖自尽。

SEETHEBIGPICTURE@CATNONTX June 2, 2016 10:10AM
So, that makes it ok? The wealthy deserve it?

所以，这样就没问题了？这些富人配（让普通美国人来保护他们）吗？

CATNONTX@SEETHEBIGPICTURE June 2, 2016 11:11AM
And what are you going to do? Bring out the guillotines again? Because that clearly didn't work.

那你打算怎么做？又把断头台拿出来吗？那显然没用。

DODINY@CATNONTX@SEETHEBIGPICTUREJune 3, 2016 3:3AM
The french aristocracy didn't see it coming either. And yes, the guillotines worked just fine.  Ask Marie

法国贵族们也没料到有天他们会走上断头台。没错，断头台确实挺管用的。去问问玛丽你就知道了。
【注：玛丽·安托瓦尼特，法国国王路易十六的王后。1792年，为了防止帝制被复辟，路易十六和王后玛丽·安托瓦尼特先后在巴黎被革命者送上断头台。】

RIVERSIDEKIM@CATNONTX June 2, 2016 11:11AM
It is not about being jealous, it is about what is right and what is fair. I make $1750 gross and $1275 take home after taxes. I have a degree and have worked for 30 years. Some wealthy people are smart, others got there because they are selfish and greedy.
Since you are obviously rich, Do you think that you could survive on $1275 a month when a 1 bedroom in the ghetto costs $700 a month???????

这与嫉妒无关，这事关对错与公平。我一共挣1750美元，税后到手1275美元。我有学位并且已经工作了30年。有些富人很聪明，有些人却很自私很贪婪。
很明显你是个有钱人，但你有想过吗，一个人每月挣1275美元，光是贫民区里的一间卧室就要花掉他700美元一个月，你要他怎么活？？？

CATNONTX@RIVERSIDEKIM June 2, 2016 0:12PM
My house costs me $800 a month. How do you find it hard to survive on $1275?

我每月花在房屋方面的费用是800美元。1275美元你怎么就活不下去了？

CSPARISH1956@CATNONTX June 3, 2016 11:11PM
America -the home of the catty and complacent, who areexcessively paranoid.

阴险狡诈、自鸣得意的人在美国社会中多得是，他们总是过度猜疑。

STRATOZYCK1 June 2, 2016 5:5AM
Mark Thoma is spot on. Many of the commenters here intellectually do not understand the arguments. He is not saying "we need to tax the rich more" but merely countering the argument that "taxing the rich more will cause the downfall of the economy and is wrong to do so."
To be in the top tax bracket in the US, you need to make $414,000 per year. The argument is that people in this bracket are more likely than middle class families to have arrived there due to market power. Think of a doctor or lawyer. They have legal protection against competition via licensing requirements. They also have market power in what they charge because no one really knows how much an ER visit will cost beforehand nor do you know how much a lawyer will cost when you start down that road. Similarly, holders of patents and intellectual property rights depend on the system to defend their rights.
And no, the top 1% do NOT pay a majority of Federal taxes. That measure is an outright lie that does not include social security taxes. Social security taxes are collected entirely on those below about 110k or so and benefit those in the middle and lower classes. If the wealthy want to pay less in taxes, maybe they should advocate for a smaller military? No? Ok, then they should pay for the majority of it. Its just.
Government waste is simply not as rampant as people think. The private sector spends almost 20% of health care expenditures on advertising while medicare spends almost nothing. How is that more efficient?
The rich do NOT pay their fair share. If capital gains taxes were treated like normal income, they would be paying their fair share. But someone sitting on $1 mil annual investment income pays a lower share than a high school teacher. How is that fair? What if that $1 mil of annual investment income were inherited and he (or she) votes and lobbies to cut education spending so that teacher notonly has a higher tax rate, but also higher education expenses to become ateacher?
No, that wouldn't happen now would it? Oh wait...

本文作者说得对。这里评论的多数人并未从理性的角度去理解作者的理论。他要表达的不是“我们应该向富人增税”，他只是想反驳“向富人增税会引起经济下滑，所以这么做是错的”这一理论。
在美国，需按最高税率缴税的，年收入要达到41.4万美元。该理论认为，缴纳最高税率的这些人之所以会比中产家庭更快达到这一收入标准，是因为市场支配力在起作用。这让我想起了医生和律师这两个职业。因为有执业证书这个硬性要求，使得他们可以获得合法保护，从而避开竞争。在收费方面他们也有一定的市场支配力，因为没人能提前预知一次急诊会诊的费用，当你开始走上诉讼之路的时候，你也不会知道将在律师身上花掉多少钱。同样地，专利持有人和知识产权所有人都在依靠制度来保障他们的权利。
拥有最高收入的那1%的人群并未缴纳大部分的联邦税。那项措施没有将社会保障税纳入其中，根本就是个彻头彻尾的谎言。社会保障税的征收对象全部都是收入在11万美元左右或以下的，该项税收的受益人群是中下阶层。如果富人想少交点税，那么他们该站出来呼吁裁减军队规模了吧？不肯？好的，那他们该为此承担大部分支出。这样才合理。
政府浪费并不像人们所想的那么猖獗。私营部门将差不多20%的医疗保健支出用到了打广告上，而医疗保险的相关费用几乎为零。为何它会更具效率呢？
在缴税时富人并未承担他们的公平份额。如果资本利得税被视作正常收入，他们就会承担起他们的那一份公平份额。有些人坐拥100万美元的年投资收益，所分摊的税收份额甚至低于一个中学教师。这样公平吗？如果有人继承了这100万美元的年投资收益，然后他（或她）通过投票和游说的方式来削减教育开支，那么教师不仅要承受更高的税率，还要为成为一名教师在教育上投入更多？
不，以前不会这样。而现在呢？额，等下……

SEETHEBIGPICTURE@STRATOZYCK1 June 2, 2016 10:10AM
No one pays 39 %  on all of their earned income. It is a progressive tax so you pay based on each bracket as you go up. Add it all up and it becomes the effective tax rate. 39% is on the portion over 466,950
Since 50% of the American families make 50,000 or less, it sad we just focus on the top 1%.

人们不需要用全部收入的39%来交税。这是一个渐进的税种，每一层次的收入有其相对应的税率等级。将它们全部加起来就是有效税率。39%是指收入超过了466950美元这个数额后多出部分的税率。
由于大半美国家庭的收入水平处在5万美元或5万美元以下，我们只能可悲地将注意力都集中到那最富有的1%身上了。

RIVERSIDEKIM@STRATOZYCK1 June 2, 2016 11:11AM
That is such baloney. The rich spend all of their money on themselves and not on better wages, more jobs, or opening more businesses. Each group needs to be taxed by what is fair according to their wages and the cost of living expenses.

真是胡扯。富人把所有的钱都花在自己身上，而不是给雇员加薪、创造更多工作岗位、开办更多的企业。每个阶层都应按其公平份额进行纳税，公平份额的制定则应以收入和生活开销为依据。

CATNONTX@RIVERSIDEKIM June 2, 2016 0:12PM
Jealous?

嫉妒有钱人了？

WILLKX June 2, 2016 4:4AM
Not enough people in America pay Federal and State Income tax. When and if they do, they may start to realize where actual earnings come from and ask for more fiscal restraint and better use ofpublic funds. It is so easy to say "tax the rich". Most of the rich did not get there by being stupid and with the help of the congress always have an "out" (some call them loopholes) to shield the majority of their money. The entire system needs an overhaul.

在美国，缴纳联邦和州所得税的人还不够多。如果这部分人开始缴纳税款了，他们便会意识到（税收）收入究竟从何而来，继而开始要求财政紧缩和更好地利用公共资金。喊一句“向富人征税”是件毫不费力的事情。大多数的富人不会蠢到老实就范，在国会的帮助下，他们总有“法子”（有人管这叫漏洞）将大部分身家藏匿起来。整个制度需要进行一次彻底地改革了。

NEWSLEUTH June 2, 2016 3:3AM
More lies from the "sleazy" media. Trickle down drove the Reagan economic "boom" and tax credits SPARKED the Bush earnings record. Let's talk about the Democrats housing collapse, not historic Republican gains!

“垃圾”媒体又在撒谎了。“涓滴经济”促成了里根执政时期的经济繁荣，税收抵免政策帮助布什在任内创造了收益记录。现在，我们该讨论一下民主党上台后的楼市崩盘了，别老是拿着共和党的历史功绩说事！

SUMBODDEY June 2, 2016 1:1AM
A helpful thing would be to define "small business" by revenue, not by number of owners. That would cut out a bunch of tax dodging weasels without harming mom & pop operations.

用收入而不是所有者人数来定义“小企业”，这一点很重要。这样既不会伤害到夫妻店一类小型家庭式企业的运营，也能阻止大批逃税黄鼠狼趁机钻空子。