TE||American tax reform
1
导读
一图看懂参议院通过的特朗普税改版本
本图片节选自新浪界面，强烈推荐阅读文章
http://news.sina.com.cn/w/zx/2017-12-03/doc-ifypikwt5305682.shtml
2
听力 | 精读 | 翻译 | 词组
American tax reform
美国税制改革
本文英文部分选自经济学人Leaders版块
Worry about the Republicans’ tax bill—and how it was passed
共和党税改提案及其通过程序令人担忧
If politicians sever their arguments from reality, economic policy will only get worse
如果政治家们脱离现实去提观点，经济政策只会变得更糟
SOME political theorists argue that the law draws legitimacy not just from voting, but also from public debate before legislation is passed. In voting through a tax-reform bill on December 2nd, Republicans in Congress have tested this principle to destruction. The bill, like most, has its strengths and its weaknesses, but Republicans have rushed it through disregarding the value of consistency and evidence. Their success will weigh on the quality of American government.
一些政治理论家认为，一项法律是否合法不仅需要投票表决，而且也需要在表决前进行公众辩论。而在12月2日国会通过的一项税收改革提案投票中，共和党却破坏了这一原则。与大多数提案一样，该提案也有其优点和缺点，但共和党却无视一致性和证据的价值而仓促行动。该提案的通过将让美国政府肩负重压。
Weign on：使苦恼，重压于，压在心上，使烦恼
The Senate’s bill is broadly similar to one that passed in the House of Representatives in November. It would slash the corporate tax rate from 35% to 20% (albeit a year later than the House bill). Taxes for unincorporated businesses and individuals would fall substantially. The personal exemption, which reduces a household’s taxable income in accordance with its size, would be replaced with a much higher standard deduction, the flat amount that can be earned tax-free. The child tax credit would also rise. To raise money, the bill curbs some deductions, such as those for debt interest and state levies.
参议院的提案与11月众议院通过的提案大体相似。提案内容包括：一、公司税率从35%降至20%(尽管比众议院的提案晚了一年)；二、非法人企业和个人的税收将大幅下降；三、个人免税额提高；四、儿童税收抵免额增加。同时为了筹集资金，该提案限制了一些税收扣减项目，比如债务利息和州税。
Lawmakers reconciling the bills confront three main differences. First, the Senate proposal leaves the deduction for mortgage interest mostly intact; the House wisely wants to curb it. Second, whereas the House would abolish the estate (inheritance) tax entirely, the Senate would keep it. It is right to do so, though it would double the threshold at which the tax kicks in, from $22.4m (for couples). Third, the Senate has tacked on a repeal of Obamacare’s individual mandate, a fine for Americans who do not buy health insurance even if they can afford it.
调和提案的立法者面临三个主要分歧：一、参议院的提案原封不动保留贷款利息抵扣政策;但众议院明智地想减免它；二、参议院想保留遗产（继承）税，而众议院想完全废除它。保留遗产税是正确的，尽管夫妻的税收起征点会翻倍（从2240万美元开始）；三、医参议院附加了废除奥巴马医改改的个人强制医保的规定，而废除奥巴马法案对于那些即使买得起却没购买医疗保险的美国人来说是一个惩罚（奥巴马医改法案规定美国民众必须参加医疗保险，否则会面临罚款。）
One test of the final bill is its effect on the economy. On the one hand it would limit deductions in favour of cuts to marginal tax rates—a worthwhile reform. On the other it will increase inequality, largely because business-owners tend to be rich, and it will add a trillion dollars in public borrowing by 2027, according to an official projection for the Senate’s bill.
最终法案的一个考验是它对经济的影响。一方面，它将限制扣除额来支持对边际税率的削减，因此是一个有价值的改革，另一方面，它将扩大不公平，根据针对参议院提案的官方预测，主要是因为企业主会变得更富有；到2027年，政府将预计增加1万亿美元的公开借款。
But there is another test, which is the effect on governance. The Republicans have argued that their bill is aimed at helping middle-class Americans and that it will spark enough economic growth to pay for itself. This is belied by experience— witness the rise in deficits after the tax cuts of 1981 and the early 2000s(see page 31). Not even economists in sympathetic think tanks believe that the Republican claims will be borne out. Steve Mnuchin, the treasury secretary, has failed to produce any analysis justifying his predictions of much higher growth (his department’s inspector-general is investigating why not). The Treasury did, however, delete a study from its website that was unhelpful to the administration’s argument.
但还有另一个考验，就是税改还对政府管理的影响。共和党曾表示，本次税改旨在为中产阶级家庭减轻税负，而此举引发的经济增长足以为税改买单。然而经验告诉我们并非如此的：1981年(里根总统）和21世纪初（小布什），美国均曾施行减税政策，但却导致赤字扩大（详见本刊31页）。甚至连赞同税改法案的经济学家智囊团也认为共和党的断言会落空。财政部长史蒂夫·努钦（Steven Mnuchin）曾预言税改会带来更高幅度的经济增长，但现如今也已无法佐证自己的预测（财政部检察长正对此展开研究）。不过，财政部确实曾从官网删除了一篇对政府观点毫无帮助的研究报告。
All politicians exaggerate the benefits of their policies, and some Republicans have made unconvincing claims about the rewards of tax cuts for decades. However, in the1980s the party undertook a robust debate over the merits of supply-side economics, and in the 2000s George W. Bush’s own economists cautioned against over-rosy growth forecasts. This time, most Republican senators simply brushed off the official projection that the bill’s effects would contradict their sunny promises. In addition, they attacked the independent forecasters whom they have previously championed as a valuable restraint on self-serving politicians. And to minimize scrutiny, they rushed the bill through barely a day after the forecast was released. Perhaps, after the failure of health-care reform, they were desperate for a significant legislative achievement.
没有哪位政治家不会夸大政策带来的好处。近几十年来，一些共和党人士一直都在宣传减税的好处，但却难以令人信服。20世纪80年代，共和党就供给学派经济学的优势展开了一场激烈的辩论；21世纪初，辅助乔治·沃克·布什（小布什）的经济学家曾告诫人们不可对经济增长的预期过于乐观。这一回，官方表示，税改法案取得的成效预计会有悖于人们的殷切希望，然而参议院的大部分共和党人对此却不屑一顾。他们甚至还抨击了独立预测员，在此之前，他们曾支持独立预测员，认为他们有效遏制了谋私利的政治家。为了尽可能减少审查，官方公布预测结果不到一天时间内，共和党人就匆匆通过了减税法案。医改方案失败后，共和党或许正迫切需要一份重大立法成就。
A lack of consistency makes Republicans seem unprincipled. They have spent the past decade claiming that the national debt is among their main concerns. In 2009 they opposed President Barack Obama’s fiscal stimulus, arguing that it was unaffordable. Yet it cost less than today’s tax bill would. It passed when unemployment was over 8% and interest rates were stuck near zero. Today unemployment is 4.1% and rates have started rising because the Federal Reserve is worried about inflation. The Fed will probably raise rates faster after the tax bill, limiting the boost to economic growth.
缺乏一致性使得共和党人看起来很没有原则性。过去他们已经花费了十年时间，声称国债是他们最关注的问题之一。2009年，他们反对奥巴马总统的财政刺激政策，认为这会令国家财政不堪重负。事实上，共和党现在的税收法案成本更高。奥巴马税改时的失业率超过8%，利率几乎接近零。如今，失业率下降到4.1%，而利率因美联储担心通货膨胀而开始上调。税改提案通过后，美联储加息节奏或许会加快，这会限制减税对经济增长的刺激。
The whiff of self-enrichment does not help. President Donald Trump assures Americans that the bill will be “not good” for his bank balance. Without seeing his tax returns, that is impossible to know. But he holds interests in around 500 “pass- through” businesses, which are among the main beneficiaries of the tax bill. As a property developer, he is almost uniquely fortunate in being allowed to keep most of his tax exemptions.
自己致富无济于事。唐纳德·特朗普总统向美国人民保证，该法案对他的银行结存没有好处。看不到他的纳税申报单，该法案对他到底有没有好处根本无从知晓。然而特朗普总统持有大约500家“赋税转由合伙人缴纳的”企业的股份，这些企业都是税收法案的主要受益方。作为房地产开发商，特朗普总统能够使自己大部分业务免于征税，这无疑是极度幸运的
Tax return:纳税申报单
Talking is good
对话有益
When Democrats cried foul after the bill passed, Mitch McConnell, the Senate leader, retorted that: “You complain about process when you are losing.” Nonsense. A robust and factual debate is essential to good policymaking. The erosion of standards will feed on itself. Already, some voices on the left are saying that deficits should never again stop Democrats from spending freely when they are in power. In a country facing a huge long-term fiscal shortfall, that is a worrying thought.
民主党在提案通过后极为不满，议员首脑麦康奈尔（Mitch McConnell）反驳说“失败者只能抱怨程序不公”。真是一派胡言。一番激烈而真实的辩论对制定好的政策是十分重要的，准则的破坏将会反噬其身。已有来自左派的声音说当民主党上台的时候，不应该因为政府赤字而在花钱上缩手缩脚。在一个长期面临财政赤字的国家，这是一个十分令人担忧的想法。
Democracy requires deliberation, and deliberation requires honesty. After this bill, a great fear of the Founding Fathers—a politics of warring factions and interests, scrapping over the public purse—looks closer than ever.
民主政治需要深思熟虑，深思熟虑要求开诚布公。在该法案之后，国家派别互相敌对，利益集团为公共资金喧争不止，这与开国元勋们最担忧的政治状态看起来从未有过的接近。
翻译组：
Ailce，女，中学教师，经济学人粉丝
Grace，女，卫生民工，经济学人粉丝
Wesley，男，自由职业，经济学人铁粉
Aileen，女，大四数学狗 经济学人粉丝
Swallow，女，英专研究生，经济学人粉丝
校核组：
Neil，男，外贸民工，经济学人铁粉
Samantha，女，外企低管，语言爱好者
Damon，男，建筑民工 ，经济学人铁粉
2
观点 |评论|思考
本次观点由口译民工Cyrus全权执笔
当地时间12月2日，美国参议院发表推文称税改方案以51:49获得通过。减税力度之强为10年减1.4万亿。从表面上看，此次的减税貌似对美国国内各个社会阶层的民众都会所裨益。例如，企业所得税从35%减到20%，企业的海外所得税降至10%，遗产税的起征点也得到提高，这三点是最引人注目的三个变革。
此次税法的通过也饱受争议。缺乏分析是最引人诟病的一点。479页的税法法案草草通过，12月1日法案完成，在不到24小时的时间内便获得了51位共和党参议员的力挺，进而通过。对于民主党来说，税改的通过更多是一场政治上的胜利，放手一赌。
对于此次税改，口水战几乎从无间断。“挺Trump派“认为税改可以大幅度减轻美国国内企业的负担，从而使得特朗普的“美国优先”原则落到实处，提高美国企业的竞争力。“倒Trump派”则认为此举无疑会加大美国国内的贫富差距，使得富人更富，穷人和普通百姓只得在一旁吃瓜，看着上层阶级瓜分利益。甚至有人称此次税改是美国史上最大的盗窃，是共和党对财政部的一次洗劫，更有矛头直指特朗普，称其完全是在为自己的企业谋私利。
理念上的截然不同导致言论上的巨大分裂。孰是孰非，谁对谁错，哪种结论正确，哪种方法可信，现在下结论还为时过早。
PS:小编科普下奥巴马医改法案
Obamacare经济学人在很多期中都提到过，小编记忆比较深刻的是7月份的这一期
https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21725290-republicans-must-now-make-affordable-care-act-work-three-steps-fix-obamacare
以下是小编的summary和查询的衍生资料
1.奥巴马医改五分钟动画详解
http://m.youku.com/video/id_XNjE0OTA2NDY4.html?url_type=1&object_type=&pos=1&source=
2.奥巴马医改法案Obamacare文字版详解
http://ry10262004.blog.sohu.com/124528272.html
3.有了这些背景知识，我们再来看弥补奥巴马医改法案的三步走中的第一步:希望更多的州能够效仿三个州启动再保险项目去付奥巴马医改法案中高额的医疗成本，从而减少风险，那么问题来了 1.什么是再保险？简单的说是保险人原保合同基础上，通过签订分保合同，将所承保的部分风险和责任向其他保险公司进行保险的行为。obamacare规定对于有潜在疾病的人都不能拒保和提高保费，所以这部分人采用再保险当时可以减少一部分风险。2.为什么再保险可以减少保费？因为很大一部分白领交的抵税，从而相当于降低了保费。
4.关于再保险详细解读
https://www.zhihu.com/question/20695254
5.奥巴马医保法案，对美国原来医保制度的冲击最主要的有三点：每个人都必须买医保，联邦政府可以补贴；超过50个雇员的公司必须给员工买医保；保险公司不得拒绝有健康问题的人投保。
以上纯属个人观点，如有雷同，纯属巧合，
如有错误，望大家留言更正
4
愿景
小组
小编理工男，建筑底层民工，经济学人铁粉，和小伙伴(经济学人小群不超过8个人）看经济学人到现在已经将近500多天。现有一经济学人大群,如果您也有兴趣，可加入我们学习小组，群规甚严，请三思后而入群，WeChat : foxwulihua