【洛杉矶时报 20130203】所得税的诞生

满仓

【中文标题】所得税的诞生
【原文标题】The birth of the income tax
【登载媒体】洛杉矶时报
【原文作者】Thomas V. DiBacco
【原文链接】http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-dibacco-income-tax-20130203,0,7041094.story


国会在一百年前通过了宪法第十六条修正案，本以为各州不会批准，但后来事情变得复杂了。



这个月，是美国宪法第十六条修正案获批100周年的纪念日，它赋予国会向美国人的收入所得征税的权力。 为了避免落入“财政悬崖”，国会在通过《美国纳税人救助法案》时，经历了漫长的会议和反复的讨论。第十六条修正案与此不同，它在1909年轻松得到了参众两院的一致赞同。

大部分众议员之所以支持这条修正案，其实是基于一个错误的理由——他们坚定地认为，这种税收提案绝对不会被四分之三以上的州批准。美国富人会想方设法地游说立法机关以将其扼杀，而且，联邦政府当时的财务状况还算不错。

当然，也有一些众议员，比如Cordell Hull，一直强烈支持这种税收制度，目的是确保公平。

Hull对于所得税的观点在当代也有借鉴的意义：“我认为国家的财富应当承担恰当的税收，不能允许任何逃避责任的行为。任何熟悉这个国家立法史的人都必须承认，政府的重担一直以来都是由那些最不应当的群体来负担，而手中财富不断积累的群体却在享受政府的保护和恩惠，并因此逃避了大部分责任。”

Hull的观点开始在南部和西部众议员中产生影响，这些人大多代表农业人口的利益，对富有的商人不用纳税的行为无比愤恨。与此同时，反对派也开始采取行动。他们威胁要让这项提案进行各州投票，甚至还会表示支持——当然，他们假设的前提是提案肯定不会被批准。毕竟，这条只有30个字的修正案既直白又吓人：“国会有权对任何来源的收入规定和征收所得税，不必在各州按比例分配，也无须考虑任何人口普查或人口统计。”

1909年7月，参议院和众议院分别以77票支持0票反对、318票支持14票反对通过这项提案。

然而，反对派似乎猜对了各州对此的反应。6个月之后，只有一个州——阿拉巴马——批准了这项修正案。到1910年，只有8个州批准实施。1911年，修正案逐渐普及开，22个州加入批准的行列。

尽管如此，反对派依然坚信这条修正案必死，因为从未有过任何一条修正案在国会批准两年半之后依然有号召力，尽管只需要5个州就可以达到36个州的最低标准。

之后，出人意料的事情发生了，1912年的总统大选为这条修正案焕发了生机。三位总统候选人——在任总统威廉•霍华德•塔夫脱、民主党候选人伍德罗•威尔逊和第三方挑战者西奥多•罗斯福——一致支持这条修正案。1913年2月3日，在经历了创纪录的43个月批准期之后，终于有36个州批准了修正案。

这还不是最糟糕的部分。书写一条宪法修正案远比设计具体执行条款来得容易。直到1913年10月，国会依然无法就税率和具体细节达成一致意见。

管理规定也迟迟未能出台。1913年是纳税申报的第一年，我们现在使用的三页报表在1914年1月8日才出现。尽管只有很少一部分人需要提交报表（申报额的限定免除了大部分美国人的申报手续），但仍有无数的问题丢给国税局，纳税人只能等待国税局的澄清。到了2月21日，政府表示不会再发布更多的说明。国税局只做出了一个让步，申报截止日期是3月1日星期天，因此而延期到3月2日。

几个月之后在丹佛召开的一个全国税务会议中，专家们纷纷攻击所得税。他们认为税率过高，50万美元以上的收入竟然要征收7％的税。还有人指出法律具有歧视性，只针对部分收入征税。

所有人都认为，最让纳税人困惑的是长达27页的冗长细则。用来自纽约的税收专家A. C. Rearick的话来说：“给人印象最深刻的是它太复杂了。首先，法案的用语复杂难懂、措辞令人费解。有的句子长达数百个单词，其中从句套从句，条件带条件。术语也难以理解，同样一段话会出现在不同的段落和章节中。”

当然，Rearick提出了更好的方法，这就是《简化版联邦所得税法》。



原文：

Congress passed the 16th Amendment thinking the states wouldn't ratify it. Then things got complicated.

This month marks the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which gave Congress the power to tax American incomes. Unlike the contentious congressional drama in passing the American Taxpayer Relief Act to avert going over the "fiscal cliff," the 16th Amendment was accorded little emotion when it received a thumbs-up from both houses in 1909.

That was because most congressmen backed the amendment for the wrong reason — they firmly believed that no such taxing proposal would ever be ratified by the requisite three-fourths of the states. It was thought that wealthy Americans lobbying their state legislatures would bury it. Besides, the federal government was in good fiscal shape back then.

Sure, there were a few congressmen, such as Rep. Cordell Hull (D-Tenn.), who long championed such a tax in the interests of fairness.

Hull's rationale for the tax has a contemporary ring: "I do believe that the wealth of the country should bear its just share of the burden of taxation and that it should not be permitted to shirk that duty. Anyone at all familiar with the legislative history of the nation must admit that the chief burdens of government have long been borne by those least able to bear them, while accumulated wealth has enjoyed the protection and other blessings of the government and thus far escaped most of its accompanying burdens."

As Hull's pleas began to have an effect on some Southern and Western congressmen who represented agricultural interests resentful of the growing untaxed wealth of millionaire businessmen, opponents made their strategic move. They offered not only to bring the issue to a vote but even to support it — on the unspoken grounds, of course, that the states would reject it. After all, the 30 words of the amendment were downright scary: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

In July 1909, the measure passed the Senate 77 to 0, the House by 318 to 14.

Opponents, however, seemed to have guessed correctly on the reluctance of the states. After six months, only one, Alabama, had ratified the amendment. A mere eight states approved it in 1910. The pace picked up in 1911, with 22 getting on the ratification bandwagon.

No matter. Opponents reasoned that the matter was dead, for no previous amendment had remained viable 2 1/2 years after congressional approval, even though only five more states were necessary to reach the required 36.

Then, surprisingly, the presidential campaign of 1912 breathed new life into the measure. All three candidates — incumbent President William Howard Taft, Democrat Woodrow Wilson and third-party challenger Theodore Roosevelt — supported the amendment. On Feb. 3, 1913, the required approval by 36 states had been achieved after a record 43 months on the ratification stump.

But the worst was yet to come. Writing a constitutional amendment was much easier than devising implementing legislation. Congress couldn't agree on the rates and finer details, until October 1913.

And administrative provisions were slow to come. None of the three-page tax forms was available for the first tax year of reporting — 1913 — until Jan. 8, 1914. Although only a tiny fraction of the population was required to submit a return (a result of generous exemptions that exceeded the incomes of most Americans), questions barraging the Internal Revenue Service were so numerous that taxpayers had to wait for clarifying statements. By Feb. 21, the government threw up its hands, stating that no more clarifying announcements would be issued. The IRS made one concession, however. Because the filing deadline of March 1 fell on a Sunday, the deadline was extended to March 2.

A few months later, at a national tax conference in Denver, experts attacked this noble experiment with income taxes. Attendees blasted the excessive rates of taxation, with a top rate of 7% on net incomes over $500,000. Others pointed out that the law was discriminatory, taxing some incomes but not others.

All agreed that the confusion among taxpayers was due to the taxing verbiage of the 27-page law. In the words of one tax expert, A. C. Rearick of New York: "Its complexity is its distinguishing characteristic. To begin with, the language in which the act is couched is involved and its rhetoric bewildering. It contains sentences hundreds of words in length, in which clauses are added to clauses and provisos heaped upon provisos. Its terminology is confusing. Identical passages are variously referred to as paragraphs, sub-sections and sections."

To be sure, Rearick had a better idea. It was called — get this — "Simplification of the Federal Income Tax."

Frontier

在美国修读会计的表示，美国的税务系统是世界上最坑爹最复杂的，没有之一……

Frontier

而且美国的国税局（IRS）是美国最具战斗力的政府部门，连FBI、CIA都自愧不如。

laotouzi

让你看不懂就是最好的法律。