【福布斯 12/01/04】在税收问题上，奥巴马应当向中国学习什么
【中文标题】税收问题上，奥巴马应当向中国学习什么
【原文标题】What Obama Needs to Learn From China About Taxes
【登载媒体】福布斯
【原文作者】Shaun Rein
【原文链接】http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/01/04/what-obama-needs-to-learn-from-china-about-taxes/
根据中央情报局提供的数据，美国收入不平等的程度比中国和印度更加严重。美国目前的经济状况已经发生断层，如果不加修复，它必将沦为香蕉共和国（译者注：指中、南美洲发展中国家）。奥巴马总统需要提升美国低收入人群的生活水平，同时遏制财富外流。尽管收入分配不公也是中国面临的严重问题，但是奥巴马总统依然可以向这个国家学习如何解决税收问题。中国所采取的一些缓解经济不平等的举措的确产生了作用。
总统应当向中国学习如何把税负从低收入人群转移到富裕人群上，方法应当是增加消费税，而不是像他现在所做的去增加所得税。高所得税率不会起到好的作用，就像一些评论者所指出的，它会削弱努力工作、创造新的商业机会的动力。没有任何一个国家的总统会给努力工作、创造机会、促进就业设置障碍。
总统对富裕人群的定义是家庭收入达到25万美元，这在今天是不切实际的。即使把这个标准提高到100万美元，或者仅对顶级富有人群提高所得税率——就像亿万富翁沃伦•巴菲特所希望的那样——也无法解决问题，因为这样获得的财政收入会被更少量的工作和投资所抵消。尽管如此，在某些危急时刻（别被人忽悠了，现在就是危急时刻），还是需要对部分可以承受的人群征税，但必须是消费税，比如针对奢侈的房屋和汽车。里根总统在任期内就曾11次提高税收标准，但他是在8年任期中的第7年这样做的。
中国政府为了减轻低收入人群的负担，提高了购买豪华、大型房屋的税率，如果买家把房子迅速出手，还要支付交易税。中国还对奢侈品征收高额消费税，比如宝马、梅赛德斯汽车，甚至还包括手表和钢笔。尽管如此，我的公司估计2011年奢侈汽车在中国的销量还是飙升了30％。如此强劲的势头让保时捷预测中国会在未来三年取代美国，成为其最大的市场。
过高的消费税让中国的奢侈汽车价格相当于美国的两到三倍。例如，S600型梅赛德斯奔驰汽车在中国售价35万美元，美国的售价是12万美元。中国一辆顶级配置的丰田凯美瑞汽车售价，顶得上美国入门级保时捷汽车的售价。飙升的销量说明，尽管有这么高的消费税，富人依然会继续消费，这就不会造成所得税所带来的打击消费信心的局面。
有高额的消费税作保障，中国政府就可以降低中低收入人群的所得税，并保持高收入人群的所得税率不变。2011年10月，政府把个人收入所得税起征点调高了10％，立即加强了数百万人的购买力。大多数中国人现在不用缴纳任何所得税。政府还降低了中小企业税率，保持大企业，包括国有企业的税率。
政府还提高了最低收入标准。在2011年，中国31个省份中的21个提高了最低收入标准，平均涨幅22％。工资水平的提高的确侵蚀了企业的收益，但是很多公司已经使用廉价劳动力足够久了。例如，富士康这个大部分苹果和戴尔产品的生产商为了应对员工的不稳定状态，在去年把平均工资提高了66％，可它依然在扩张中国的生产基地。美国最新的最低工资标准议案是在2007年通过的，2009年7月24日开始强制执行7.25美元的最低工资标准。以此算来，一个人的最低年收入大约是15000美元，而政府规定的贫困线是四口之家年收入低于22350美元。
通过提高富裕人群有机会消费的产品的消费税，同时降低或保持现有的所得税，中国政府得以维持人民的消费信心，促进消费（前三个月的零售业消费总量比去年同期增加了16％到18％），还可以保证足够的税收来进行基础建设，维持就业。中国并未彻底解决收入分配不公的问题，但其方法比美国更加有效，而且并未造成国家内部意见的严重不和。
原文：
According to data compiled by the Central Intelligence Agency, the United States has worse income inequality than China or Iran. The economic status quo in America is broken, and it needs to be fixed or the country could become a banana republic. President Obama needs to increase the assets of America’s lower classes while curtailing runaway wealth. Although income inequality remains a serious problem in China, too, President Obama should look to that country for lessons on how to fix America’s tax code. Some of what China has done to minimize economic disparity is working.
The president should learn from China to shift some of the tax burden from lower income classes to wealthier people by increasing taxes on consumption rather than, as he has tried to do, on income. High income taxes don’t work. They sap the incentive to work hard and create new businesses, as critics have rightly pointed out. No president should put up boundaries to working hard and creating businesses, and thus to job creation.
The president’s definition of the wealthy as being households with incomes above $250,000 is not realistic today. Even raising the limit to $1 million, or focusing on taxing the incomes of the ultra rich, as the billionaire Warren Buffett has wanted to do, would not work, for the revenue raised would be offset by people working and investing less. Nonetheless, in desperate times (and don’t let anyone kid you, we are in desperate times), taxes need to be raised on those who can afford it, by focusing on taxing consumption in targeted areas like luxury homes and autos. Even President Reagan raised taxes 11 times during his administration. In fact, he raised taxes in seven of his eight years as president.
To help reduce the burden on China’s poor, the Chinese government has increased taxes for buyers of expensive and large homes and introduced a transfer tax for people who sell homes quickly. The country also has high taxes on luxury cars like BMWs and Mercedes, and even watches and pens. Despite those high taxes, sales for luxury cars in China soared 30% in 2011, my firm estimates. Sales are so strong that Porsche expects China to eclipse America as its largest market in the next three years.
Partially because of those high consumption taxes, prices for luxury cars are often two or three times as much as in America. For instance, an S600 Mercedes runs about $350,000 in China, versus $120,000 in America. Even a souped-up Toyota Camry costs as much in China as an entry-level Porsche in America. The soaring sales of luxury cars there prove that the wealthy will continue to consume despite a high consumption tax, which won’t destroy confidence the way high incomes taxes would.
By taxing consumption more, the Chinese government has been able to reduce income taxes for low and middle income earners while leaving income taxes for high earners untouched. In October of 2011, the government raised the minimum taxable wage level by about 10%, immediately enlarging the spending power of millions. Most Chinese now don’t pay any income tax. The government also reduced tax rates for small enterprises while maintaining tax rates for larger corporations, including state-owned enterprises.
The government also has increased minimum wages. In 2011, 21 of China’s 31 provinces increased the minimum wage, by an average of 22%. Higher wages have dented corporate profits, but many companies have been taking advantage of their workers for far too long. For instance, in response to worker unrest last year, Foxconn, the maker of many of Apple and Dell products, increased its average wage by 66%, yet it’s still expanding its China-based operations. In the U.S., a new minimum wage bill was last passed in 2007, forcing adoption of a minimum wage of $7.25 by July 24, 2009. An annual income at that rate would be just above $15,000, while the Federal government defines the poverty line as an annual salary of $22,350 for a family of four.
By raising consumption taxes on products and services targeting the affluent while reducing or maintaining income tax levels, the Chinese government has been able to sustain consumer confidence, increase spending (retail sales have risen 16-18% annually over the last three years), and get needed tax revenue for infrastructure projects required to maintain employment numbers. China has not cracked the income disparity problem, but its measures to reduce inequality have been more effective than America’s and have not polarized the nation.
页:
[1]