浪寬
時易乾坤寵辱不驚，閑看庭前花開花落。
奧巴馬和稅收引爆點——納稅人能被逼迫多久？
作者：Adam Lerrick， 翻譯：浪寬
如果選民中的確切中等收入的人群從華盛頓得到的好處超過他們所支付的稅款後會發生什麽事？經濟學家艾倫·麥策和斯科特·理查德27年前提出了這個問題。我們可能會很快知道答案。
奧巴馬給選民提供強有力的獎勵，以支持較高的稅收和更大的政府。這可能是民主黨長期以來都在尋找神奇的收入再分配公式。
參議員奧巴馬承諾選民以退還稅收抵免的形式送給一些人500美元和1,000美元的禮包。這將改變稅務人口統計的臨界點，即一半以上的選民將從華盛頓收到現金橫財,以及絕大多數將受益於增稅和政府開支。
在2006年，即最近一次有人口普查數據之年，總共有2億2千萬美國人有資格投票，其中8千9百萬（即40％）不支付任何所得稅。根據稅收政策中心（一家合資企業的布魯金斯學會與城市研究所）的統計，如果按照奧巴馬先生的現金回饋計劃，進一步從稅務名冊中刪除1千8百多萬選民，這個比例將躍升至49％。更何況，還有另外2千4百萬納稅人（11％的選民）將支付最小數額的所得稅——少於收入的5％，每年不到1,000美元（譯者注：這將使不繳或基本不交繳稅的人口上升到60%，足以讓任何一位加稅並擴充福利的候選人輕易擊敗對手）。
總之，按照奧巴馬的計劃，在每5個選民中，有3個支付很少或幾乎不支付所得稅的人將會因為政府對另外40%已支付95％的聯邦總所得稅的人群增稅而受益。
這種對5％每年收入超過$25萬“非常富裕”的、已經支付60％的聯邦稅的人群的掠奪性的征稅，將永遠不夠用以支付奧巴馬先生承諾的龐大計劃。
下一步會怎樣？一組核心奧巴馬支持者——那些讚揚他們的候選人的稅收計劃“公平”的受過教育的專業人士，將很快轉向那些年收入在$10到15萬的家庭。出於自身權力和利益的考量，作為人口多數的選民，將會把高稅率的階梯下降，直至年收入在$75,000的家庭。
要計算一個社會對最能賺錢的高收入人群施加多少壓力才會迫使他們停止（或減少）生產是很困難的。但獎勵是很容易看到效果的。受益於政府計劃的選民將推動政府對較高收入的人群征收更高的稅率——至少在這些為經濟注入活力並創造就業機會和財富的富人們停止工作、停止投資、或搬出該國以前不會停止。
在其他國家，曾試圖搞理想的公平社會的地方最後卻發現，對不付出辛苦工作的人們的獎勵是生產力低下的良方。在1970年代後期和整個20世紀80年代，撒切爾夫人在大不列顛與工會對峙並削減稅收，從而恢複經濟增長和增加就業機會。幾年前在德國社會民主黨總理施羅德不顧他本黨的教條，力主放鬆勞工對經濟的控製，使停滯結束。另外，最近在法國，使薩爾科齊能掌權的舞台就是恢複經濟的彈性。
流程大底相同。高稅收、大支出的政策會使經濟失去增長的動力。如果政府的開支增長率超過了財政收入，財政和貿易赤字就會劇增，這又進一步導致政府公債增加、稅收過重和高失業率。央行試圖通過印鈔票來解決這一問題，從而導致國際競爭力喪失和貨幣貶值，直至該係統停擺。然後，收過了驚嚇的選民會將權力再還給保守派（譯者注：這種情況在80年發生在裏根身上，人們拋棄了大搞社福的卡特而選擇了保守的裏根）。
當華盛頓試驗歐洲的社會民主主義的時候，經濟大潮將不會停止不動，盡管美元作為全球儲備貨幣的作用會為我們贏得一些時間。我們的商品的競爭優勢將會喪失，而且一旦失去，就很難再恢複，因為世界上有很多的新興經濟體，它們注重於經濟的繁榮而不是再分配，不會讓美國輕易地重新奪回其對全球經濟的主導地位（譯者注：中國、印度、巴西等大國會搶占美國大公司衰落後空出的市場）。
明天的兒童可能會質疑，為什麽他們的父母會為了一種混亂的“公平”而賣掉他們與生俱來的天賦——那將意味著就業的減少以及不再為世人矚目的美國機會。
（Lerrick先生是卡內基梅隆大學經濟學教授和美國企業研究所訪問學者。）
本人水平有限，錯誤難免，敬請諒解。下麵是原文 。
Obama and the Tax Tipping Point How long before taxpayers are pushed too far?
What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes? Economists Allan Meltzer and Scott Richard posed this question 27 years ago. We may soon enough know the answer.
Barack Obama is offering voters strong incentives to support higher taxes and bigger government. This could be the magic income-redistribution formula Democrats have long sought.
Sen. Obama is promising $500 and $1,000 gift-wrapped packets of money in the form of refundable tax credits. These will shift the tax demographics to the tipping point where half of all voters will receive a cash windfall from Washington and an overwhelming majority will gain from tax hikes and more government spending.
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
The plunder that the Democrats plan to extract from the "very rich" -- the 5% that earn more than $250,000 and who already pay 60% of the federal income tax bill -- will never stretch to cover the expansive programs Mr. Obama promises.
What next? A core group of Obama enthusiasts -- those educated professionals who applaud the "fairness" of their candidate's tax plans -- will soon see their $100,000-$150,000 incomes targeted. As entitlements expand and a self-interested majority votes, the higher tax brackets will kick in at lower levels down the ladder, all the way to households with a $75,000 income.
Calculating how far society's top earners can be pushed before they stop (or cut back on) producing is difficult. But the incentives are easy to see. Voters who benefit from government programs will push for higher tax rates on higher earners -- at least until those who power the economy and create jobs and wealth stop working, stop investing, or move out of the country.
Other nations have tried the ideology of fairness in the place of incentives and found that reward without work is a recipe for decline. In the late 1970s and throughout the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher took on the unions and slashed taxes to restore growth and jobs in Great Britain. In Germany a few years ago, Social Democrat Gerhard Schroeder defied his party's dogma and loosened labor's grip on the economy to end stagnation. And more recently in France, Nicolas Sarkozy was swept to power on a platform of restoring flexibility to the economy.
The sequence is always the same. High-tax, big-spending policies force the economy to lose momentum. Then growth in government spending outstrips revenues. Fiscal and trade deficits soar. Public debt, excessive taxation and unemployment follow. The central bank tries to solve the problem by printing money. International competitiveness is lost and the currency depreciates. The system stagnates. And then a frightened electorate returns conservatives to power.
The economic tides will not stand still while Washington experiments with European-type social democracy, even though the dollar's role as the global reserve currency will buy some time. Our trademark competitive advantage will be lost, and once lost, it will be hard to regain. There are too many emerging economies focused on prosperity and not redistribution for the U.S. to easily recapture its role of global economic leader.
Tomorrow's children may come to question why their parents sold their birthright for a mess of "fairness" -- whatever that will signify when jobs are scarce and American opportunity is no longer the envy of the world.
Mr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University and a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
conflicts relates to the new president's view of the world. McCain is a well known hardliner on foriegn policies. We are fed up with Bush's hard line that contributes to today's crisis. That's why we need a change.
To 沙侖玫瑰紅: 你知道中產階級在付最高的稅嗎? 你以為Tax Table上最高的稅率就是富人收入所付的稅率嗎?那你是把他們看成工薪階級了. 他們所付的主要是資本利得稅,資本利得中以紅利(dividend)最為重要,小布希把其稅率從20%減到15%(與收入多少無關). 也就是說富人大部分的收入是15%的稅率,比中產階級低得多,更不談他們的財稅顧問設計的種種避稅手段. 想不到吧,現有的稅製在"濟"誰呢? 如此不公,McCain會對此作出改變嗎?
是的,應當簡化稅製。隻交所得稅，免除所有其他名目的稅收，由政府統一分配稅款。這樣收入和稅款的關係一目了然。多掙多交，比例可適當上調。
Biden saied Obama will be tested and therefore, more conflicts and crisis are coming.
To 浪寬: Who would cause "more conflicts" - Obama or McCain?
Visiting Scholar
While at AEI, Adam Lerrick will be studying international capital markets, particularly the role of hedge funds; international financial crises; sovereign debt restructuring; and economic development, including the impact of aid and the role of multilateral institutions. Concurrently, Dr. Lerrick is a professor of economics at Carnegie Mellon University, and an advisor to the Congressional Joint Economic Committee. He served as the senior advisor to the chairman of the International Financial Institution Advisory Commission (“Meltzer Commission”), where he analyzed the workings of the World Bank and reassessed its role in the global economy. Previously, he was an investment banker with Salomon Brothers and Credit Suisse First Boston.
Short Biography
Professional Experience
-Friends of Allan H. Meltzer Professor of Economics and director of the Gailliot Center for Public Policy, Tepper School of Business, Carnegie Mellon University, 2001-present
-Advisor, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Congress, 2001-present
-Chairman, Sovereign Debt Solutions Limited, (capital markets advisory firm) negotiation team of the largest foreign creditor in the $100 billion Argentina debt restructuring, 2003-present
-Advisor to House Majority Leader Dick Armey, 2001-2003
-Member, Commission on the Role of the Multilateral Development Banks in Emerging Markets, 2001
-Senior advisor to the chairman of the congressionally authorized International Financial Institution Advisory Commission (“Meltzer Commission”), 1999-2000
-Chairman, Lerrick & Company Incorporated (capital markets advisory firm), 1990-1999
-Partner, Voute Coats Stuart & O’Grady (investment banking), 1989-1990
-Head of capital markets product development, Credit Suisse First Boston, 1987-1988
-Head of capital markets international product development, Salomon Brothers, 1982-1986
Education
Ph.D., economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
B.A., economics, Princeton University
Ecole Alsacienne, mathematics, Paris, France
The point he (she) made was: OB won't give money back to those who did not pay federal income tax, therefore, the statement"參議員奧巴馬承諾選民以退還稅收抵免的形式送給一些人500美元和1,000美元的禮包。"is wrong. Actually, I just found out that this statement is true when a household income is below certain level (not clear what is the cut off). The reason behind this is although they don't pay federal income tax, they pay state tax, city tax, retail tax, house tax, Medicare, social security, etc. Therefore, they deserve a government bonus.
No body said Rep is good guy. This article is not Rep's view. I am not a Rep, but I believe people who work hard deserve more.
Bottom 50% people don't pay any significant tax, of course they don't like tax cut since they gain only if the tax is increased and goverment is bigger.
Remember OB want to expand the AFG war.
Comparing to China and most of other countries, we have paid too much tax here in USA, federal tax, state tax, social security tax, medicare tax, city tax, house tax, retail tax, retirement. We also pay too much for insurance, medical, car, home, life, disability, ect......too much burden.
As a middle class, how much money or properties left when you retire, probably a house (some people still haven't paid off yet), a car. What else? In China, a middle class family enjoy a much better life than in US since they don't have to pay anything for their house, pay very little for their child's education when entering their 40S-50S.
I support less tax, small goverment, less spending. Give money back to people.
No body dare to mention cut anything. What OB will cut? He doesn't dare to cut national security. He withdral troops? No. He will put those troops to AF...May be there are more areas need troops when he become the President since more conflicts are anticipated.
至少，民主黨上台後，能省下不少每天在阿富汗伊拉克花的冤枉錢吧。
麥凱恩一直聲稱要削減開支.如果認真分析政府開支的話，應該知道在非強製性“自由開支”部分，國防和戰爭占了56%強(傷兵老兵安置不算在內)。這一大塊餅麥凱恩是不願意砍的，隻有奧巴馬會砍。可以與之相比的隻有“強製性開支”的社安健保還息和失業救濟,這部分總統是無權砍的。麥凱恩要全麵減稅，僅僅削減幾項指定開支（earmark）而不敢動軍事開支這種大頭，根本是杯水車薪，隻會令赤字更大。奧巴馬上台也要增加開支,要大力研發新能源新技術,讓更多學生能夠上大學和培養優質師資.都是開支,差別在多造軍火還是多出新技術和人才,是圖利少數集團還是讓經濟持久發展.
給普通人減稅和給富人減稅有什麽不同呢? 給一個收入百萬的富翁減掉5萬稅,幾乎不會對他的生活發生任何影響.錢可能投入投資市場.但給50個普通人每人減掉1千,馬上就會投入消費市場.投資是為了生產增長,而增長完全取決於消費,兩者都有作用,但消費是源頭,作用更大更直接.給普通消費者減稅,兼有刺激生產流轉資金和增強民眾信用償債能力的效果. 投資周轉不靈,政府還可以救市.消費萎縮,那是市場真正的噩耗. 對於富翁來說,你從市場得到回報豈不是比減稅更多? 這是之所以包括Buffet等不少具有遠見的富翁們也支持奧巴馬的原因.
People who don't pay any tax will get all support, nothing to worry about it. People who pay $500-2000 tax will get most or all money back and get all support from goverment, nothing to worry about. People who pay more than $100,000 tax will have enough money to handle everything, they will take care themself, nothing to worry about. It is the people who pay $2000-100,000 need to worry about everything every day. This group is definitely a minority. Who will help you?
I was wondering, too. But if $100K - $150K are target, of course $150-250k are obviously target before that. Needless to say.
怎樣精確描述共和黨：
滿口仁義道德， 一肚子男盜女娼 (Larry Craig, Livingston etc..)
愛槍愛神恨窮人和非白人。
任何一心隻想為幾個小錢，眼前一丁點利益而力挺共和黨的人，你們知不知到美國已麵臨大危機。共和黨這次若贏了，離大混亂就不遠了，大家或著輸得光屁股，或著買槍捍衛自個的家產吧。
同性戀礙著誰了？你異性戀憑甚麽自以為了不起？多少罪惡不是由恨而犯的？