溫馨一刻
留住孩子們成長的快樂時光。
正文
去年的稅表寄出去了。一如既往，今年交給UncleSam的不多，主要是我在女兒上大學前準備的現金讓我有足夠的空間來壓低AGI,加上各種credit（主要有AmericanOpportunity credit,children credit,dependent care credit,Makingwork pay credit)。女兒大學三年我們的聯邦稅分別是900， 1500，1600（州稅裏除了AGI可調整,credit不多）。今年不用作任何調整了，但明年女兒畢業後，從稅收上看，AGI會有一些調整。這些調整其實是每年填完稅表後首先要考慮的問題。
美國的個人稅收製度越搞越複雜，讓許多人望而卻步，這也是報稅用的計算機軟件生意火紅的原因。其實年年填下來，它沒有看起來那麽複雜。大多數人的收入單一，deduction和credit也一目了然。那用軟件不就得了？是，那是很省事。但一個最大的問題是你沒法理解美國稅收的邏輯。而不理解這些邏輯，你是不可能為將來節稅而規劃的。這也是為什麽我多年來一直用筆和紙填稅表的原因。當然，這種原始的辦法，對防止“老年癡呆”肯定有一定效益。
填稅表其實是一個了解美國稅收製度的極好方式。早年讀ScottBurns的專欄，對他的許多比較“左”的觀念難以理解，現在體會就不一樣了。當年第一次聽他說美國socialsecurity（SS）是中下層人民的稅的時候，就覺得也不能完全這麽說，人家高收入人群退休後不需要那麽多SS福利，既然SS福利是封頂的，理所當然收入高出一定數字後的部分就不該交嘛。現在回頭看自己在pension上錢的累積速度，再看看美國政府因缺錢而不得不消減退休人員的SS福利的時候，對他的觀念就有了新的認識。不要說我們今後能不能拿到SS福利,就是拿得到，這個投資的回報也太低了。那誰是得益者呢？政府？政府其實隻是納稅人的代理，而有收入不交的人才是真正的得益者。從目前SS變成政府財政的補貼這點來看，Burns說“SS是中下層人民的稅”沒有錯。（現在回頭看，倒是布什當年想把SS私有化，搞成個人退休賬戶性質，還有一些公平性呢。）
記得當年看Burns的專欄，論美國不同收入階層的稅率，提到稅率最高的是20萬左右的這個人群。但所有的收入階層的稅率其實差不多的，都在18-20%（他計算時把SS和雇主的match-up也作為稅來計算），有點不理解。不是收入越高，稅率越高嗎？直到2005年前後，我把為女兒上大學存起來的現金放到股市裏賭了一把，來美國第一次有了long-termcapitalgain，自己才為那7500的收入交了5%的稅後（注明：我當時income最高稅率是15%，所以是5%。如果個人的income最高稅率在15%以上，就該是15%了。），才真正明白他的計算背後的邏輯。高收入家庭的收入很大一部分來自這些投資的收入，在美國稅法裏這些投資收益自然是另眼相待的。沒有SS和medicare稅之外，還有特殊的稅率。從這點上，也能理解當年布什要減稅的時候，這個long-termcapital gain從20%減到15%，它真正的得益人在那裏了。也知道了兩黨之爭的來由。
（對第一代移民來講，無根無基，全靠工資收入，要享受這種投資收益帶來的好處是不容易的。既需要資金累積到一定程度，也需要有投資的勇氣。當然，第一代移民為紮根，在自住房子的投資上比較積極，也是有稅收上的好處的。除了itemizeddeduction（所付利息）之外，還有就是住滿兩年後房子的增值部分，兩口子有到五十萬的免稅額。當然，這幾年沒趕上好時候，自住放上虧損的不少。）
理解了這個稅法上的不同來源的收入可能導致不同的稅率，就理解許多美國公司管理高層在公司決策上是怎麽替自己考慮的。在決定分紅還是股票buy-back上，為什麽高層會傾向後者？分紅是年年交稅（qualifieddividend是和long-term capital gain一樣交稅的），但long-term capitalgain是他們兌現的那一天，這個tax-defer的功能不是讓他們（大多持有公司的股票）有稅收上的好處嘛。
一個合適的稅法體製其實要解決兩大問題：1。政府的收支平衡；2。社會貧富差別能維持相對穩定。目前美國的稅法在這兩點上都沒有做到。你看看今天CNN的文章就知道美國的貧富差別是越拉越大了：Howthe middle class became theunderclass：（http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm）。其實也難怪，誰願意真正多交稅呢？
所以，懂得稅收的邏輯，不僅僅是給你省稅，更重要的是你能真正了解這個國家的體製體係的缺陷。當你投上一票的時候，你不會因為政客的幾句空話就決定你的選擇。要熔入這個社會，讓我們從稅法上開始吧。
（二0一一年二月十六日）
附：
How the middle class became the underclass
By Annalyn Censky, staff reporterFebruary 16, 2011: 4:30 PMET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Are you better off than your parents?
Probably not if you're in the middle class.
Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it'snot just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes havebeen stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tierhas surged ahead at lighting speed.
In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400,adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much hadchanged: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008,according to IRS data.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 ormore -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years,leaving average Americans in the dust.
Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology andglobalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves andhave-nots.
But there's more to the story.
A real drag on the middle class
One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions andother labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chiefeconomist for the Labor Department, now a professor at RutgersUniversity.
Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, unionworkers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than theirnon-union counterparts, Rodgers said.
But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years.In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010,they represented less than 12%.
"The erosion of collective bargaining is a key factor to explainwhy low-wage workers and middle income workers have seen theirwages not stay up with inflation," Rodgers said.
Without collective bargaining pushing up wages, especially forblue-collar work -- average incomes have stagnated.
International competition is another factor. While globalizationhas lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn'texactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.
Factory workers have seen many of their jobs shipped to othercountries where labor is cheaper, putting more downward pressure onAmerican wages.
"As we became more connected to China, that poses the question ofwhether our wages are being set in Beijing," Rodgers said.
Finding it harder to compete with cheaper manufacturing costsabroad, the U.S. has emerged as primarily a services-producingeconomy. That trend has created a cultural shift in the job skillsAmerican employers are looking for.
Whereas 50 years earlier, there were plenty of blue collaropportunities for workers who had only high school diploma, nowemployers seek "soft skills" that are typically honed in college,Rodgers said.
A boon for the rich
While average folks were losing ground in the economy, thewealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, anddriving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest ofAmerica.
For example, though globalization has been a drag on labor, it'sbeen a major win for corporations who've used new global channelsto reduce costs and boost profits. In addition, new markets aroundthe world have created even greater demand for theirproducts.
"With a global economy, people who have extraordinary skills...whether they be in financial services, technology, entertainment ormedia, have a bigger place to play and be rewarded from," said AlanJohnson, a Wall Street compensation consultant.
As a result, the disparity between the wages for college educatedworkers versus high school grads has widened significantly sincethe 1980s.
In 1980, workers with a high school diploma earned about 71% ofwhat college-educated workers made. In 2010, that number fell to55%.
Another driver of the rich: The stock market.
The S&P 500 has gained more than 1,300% since 1970.While that's helped the American economy grow, the benefits havebeen disproportionately reaped by the wealthy.
And public policy of the past few decades has only encouraged thetrend.
The 1980s was a period of anti-regulation, presided over byPresident Reagan, who loosened rules governing banks andthrifts.
A major game changer came during the Clinton era, when barriersbetween commercial and investment banks, enacted during thepost-Depression era, were removed.
In 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act also weakened thegovernment's oversight of complex securities, allowing financialinnovations to take off, creating unprecedented amounts of wealthboth for the overall economy, and for those directly involved inthe financial sector.
Tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and extended underObama were also a major windfall for the nation's richest.
And as then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan broughtinterest rates down to new lows during the decade, the housingmarket experienced explosive growth.
"We were all drinking the Kool-aid, Greenspan was tending bar,Bernanke and the academic establishment were supplying the liquor,"Deutsche Bank managing director Ajay Kapur wrote in a researchreport in 2009.
But the story didn't end well. Eventually, it all came crashingdown, resulting in the worst economic slump since the GreatDepression.
With the unemployment rate still excessively high and the realestate market showing few signs of rebounding, the American middleclass is still reeling from the effects of the GreatRecession.
Meanwhile, as corporate profits come roaring back and the stockmarket charges ahead, the wealthiest people continue to eclipsetheir middle-class counterparts.
"I think it's a terrible dilemma, because what we're obviouslyheading toward is some kind of class warfare," Johnson said.
美國的個人稅收製度越搞越複雜，讓許多人望而卻步，這也是報稅用的計算機軟件生意火紅的原因。其實年年填下來，它沒有看起來那麽複雜。大多數人的收入單一，deduction和credit也一目了然。那用軟件不就得了？是，那是很省事。但一個最大的問題是你沒法理解美國稅收的邏輯。而不理解這些邏輯，你是不可能為將來節稅而規劃的。這也是為什麽我多年來一直用筆和紙填稅表的原因。當然，這種原始的辦法，對防止“老年癡呆”肯定有一定效益。
填稅表其實是一個了解美國稅收製度的極好方式。早年讀ScottBurns的專欄，對他的許多比較“左”的觀念難以理解，現在體會就不一樣了。當年第一次聽他說美國socialsecurity（SS）是中下層人民的稅的時候，就覺得也不能完全這麽說，人家高收入人群退休後不需要那麽多SS福利，既然SS福利是封頂的，理所當然收入高出一定數字後的部分就不該交嘛。現在回頭看自己在pension上錢的累積速度，再看看美國政府因缺錢而不得不消減退休人員的SS福利的時候，對他的觀念就有了新的認識。不要說我們今後能不能拿到SS福利,就是拿得到，這個投資的回報也太低了。那誰是得益者呢？政府？政府其實隻是納稅人的代理，而有收入不交的人才是真正的得益者。從目前SS變成政府財政的補貼這點來看，Burns說“SS是中下層人民的稅”沒有錯。（現在回頭看，倒是布什當年想把SS私有化，搞成個人退休賬戶性質，還有一些公平性呢。）
記得當年看Burns的專欄，論美國不同收入階層的稅率，提到稅率最高的是20萬左右的這個人群。但所有的收入階層的稅率其實差不多的，都在18-20%（他計算時把SS和雇主的match-up也作為稅來計算），有點不理解。不是收入越高，稅率越高嗎？直到2005年前後，我把為女兒上大學存起來的現金放到股市裏賭了一把，來美國第一次有了long-termcapitalgain，自己才為那7500的收入交了5%的稅後（注明：我當時income最高稅率是15%，所以是5%。如果個人的income最高稅率在15%以上，就該是15%了。），才真正明白他的計算背後的邏輯。高收入家庭的收入很大一部分來自這些投資的收入，在美國稅法裏這些投資收益自然是另眼相待的。沒有SS和medicare稅之外，還有特殊的稅率。從這點上，也能理解當年布什要減稅的時候，這個long-termcapital gain從20%減到15%，它真正的得益人在那裏了。也知道了兩黨之爭的來由。
（對第一代移民來講，無根無基，全靠工資收入，要享受這種投資收益帶來的好處是不容易的。既需要資金累積到一定程度，也需要有投資的勇氣。當然，第一代移民為紮根，在自住房子的投資上比較積極，也是有稅收上的好處的。除了itemizeddeduction（所付利息）之外，還有就是住滿兩年後房子的增值部分，兩口子有到五十萬的免稅額。當然，這幾年沒趕上好時候，自住放上虧損的不少。）
理解了這個稅法上的不同來源的收入可能導致不同的稅率，就理解許多美國公司管理高層在公司決策上是怎麽替自己考慮的。在決定分紅還是股票buy-back上，為什麽高層會傾向後者？分紅是年年交稅（qualifieddividend是和long-term capital gain一樣交稅的），但long-term capitalgain是他們兌現的那一天，這個tax-defer的功能不是讓他們（大多持有公司的股票）有稅收上的好處嘛。
一個合適的稅法體製其實要解決兩大問題：1。政府的收支平衡；2。社會貧富差別能維持相對穩定。目前美國的稅法在這兩點上都沒有做到。你看看今天CNN的文章就知道美國的貧富差別是越拉越大了：Howthe middle class became theunderclass：（http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/16/news/economy/middle_class/index.htm）。其實也難怪，誰願意真正多交稅呢？
所以，懂得稅收的邏輯，不僅僅是給你省稅，更重要的是你能真正了解這個國家的體製體係的缺陷。當你投上一票的時候，你不會因為政客的幾句空話就決定你的選擇。要熔入這個社會，讓我們從稅法上開始吧。
（二0一一年二月十六日）
附：
How the middle class became the underclass
By Annalyn Censky, staff reporterFebruary 16, 2011: 4:30 PMET
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- Are you better off than your parents?
Probably not if you're in the middle class.
Incomes for 90% of Americans have been stuck in neutral, and it'snot just because of the Great Recession. Middle-class incomes havebeen stagnant for at least a generation, while the wealthiest tierhas surged ahead at lighting speed.
In 1988, the income of an average American taxpayer was $33,400,adjusted for inflation. Fast forward 20 years, and not much hadchanged: The average income was still just $33,000 in 2008,according to IRS data.
Meanwhile, the richest 1% of Americans -- those making $380,000 ormore -- have seen their incomes grow 33% over the last 20 years,leaving average Americans in the dust.
Experts point to some of the usual suspects -- like technology andglobalization -- to explain the widening gap between the haves andhave-nots.
But there's more to the story.
A real drag on the middle class
One major pull on the working man was the decline of unions andother labor protections, said Bill Rodgers, a former chiefeconomist for the Labor Department, now a professor at RutgersUniversity.
Because of deals struck through collective bargaining, unionworkers have traditionally earned 15% to 20% more than theirnon-union counterparts, Rodgers said.
But union membership has declined rapidly over the past 30 years.In 1983, union workers made up about 20% of the workforce. In 2010,they represented less than 12%.
"The erosion of collective bargaining is a key factor to explainwhy low-wage workers and middle income workers have seen theirwages not stay up with inflation," Rodgers said.
Without collective bargaining pushing up wages, especially forblue-collar work -- average incomes have stagnated.
International competition is another factor. While globalizationhas lifted millions out of poverty in developing nations, it hasn'texactly been a win for middle class workers in the U.S.
Factory workers have seen many of their jobs shipped to othercountries where labor is cheaper, putting more downward pressure onAmerican wages.
"As we became more connected to China, that poses the question ofwhether our wages are being set in Beijing," Rodgers said.
Finding it harder to compete with cheaper manufacturing costsabroad, the U.S. has emerged as primarily a services-producingeconomy. That trend has created a cultural shift in the job skillsAmerican employers are looking for.
Whereas 50 years earlier, there were plenty of blue collaropportunities for workers who had only high school diploma, nowemployers seek "soft skills" that are typically honed in college,Rodgers said.
A boon for the rich
While average folks were losing ground in the economy, thewealthiest were capitalizing on some of those same factors, anddriving an even bigger wedge between themselves and the rest ofAmerica.
For example, though globalization has been a drag on labor, it'sbeen a major win for corporations who've used new global channelsto reduce costs and boost profits. In addition, new markets aroundthe world have created even greater demand for theirproducts.
"With a global economy, people who have extraordinary skills...whether they be in financial services, technology, entertainment ormedia, have a bigger place to play and be rewarded from," said AlanJohnson, a Wall Street compensation consultant.
As a result, the disparity between the wages for college educatedworkers versus high school grads has widened significantly sincethe 1980s.
In 1980, workers with a high school diploma earned about 71% ofwhat college-educated workers made. In 2010, that number fell to55%.
Another driver of the rich: The stock market.
The S&P 500 has gained more than 1,300% since 1970.While that's helped the American economy grow, the benefits havebeen disproportionately reaped by the wealthy.
And public policy of the past few decades has only encouraged thetrend.
The 1980s was a period of anti-regulation, presided over byPresident Reagan, who loosened rules governing banks andthrifts.
A major game changer came during the Clinton era, when barriersbetween commercial and investment banks, enacted during thepost-Depression era, were removed.
In 2000, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act also weakened thegovernment's oversight of complex securities, allowing financialinnovations to take off, creating unprecedented amounts of wealthboth for the overall economy, and for those directly involved inthe financial sector.
Tax cuts enacted during the Bush administration and extended underObama were also a major windfall for the nation's richest.
And as then-Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan broughtinterest rates down to new lows during the decade, the housingmarket experienced explosive growth.
"We were all drinking the Kool-aid, Greenspan was tending bar,Bernanke and the academic establishment were supplying the liquor,"Deutsche Bank managing director Ajay Kapur wrote in a researchreport in 2009.
But the story didn't end well. Eventually, it all came crashingdown, resulting in the worst economic slump since the GreatDepression.
With the unemployment rate still excessively high and the realestate market showing few signs of rebounding, the American middleclass is still reeling from the effects of the GreatRecession.
Meanwhile, as corporate profits come roaring back and the stockmarket charges ahead, the wealthiest people continue to eclipsetheir middle-class counterparts.
"I think it's a terrible dilemma, because what we're obviouslyheading toward is some kind of class warfare," Johnson said.
評論
目前還沒有任何評論
登錄後才可評論.
