盖茨为缩小贫富差距献策

    “在这样的税制下，人们不光要申报收入，还要申报每年的储蓄额，就像许多人在提交401（k）养老金或其他养老金申报表时所做的那样。收入和储蓄之差就是一个家庭的年消费额。而该家庭的应税消费额，则是该数字减去一定标准扣除数，比如说一个四口之家的标准扣除数为3万美元。起始税率可以较低，例如10%。这样，如果一个四口之家年收入5万美元，储蓄5千美元，其应税消费额就是1.5万美元。”

    “假设一个年消费1千万美元的家庭正在考虑，是否要花200万美元，为自家豪宅增建侧翼。如果最高边际消费税率为100%，那么这项工程将耗资400万美元。由此带来的税收，能使联邦政府赤字减少200万美元。或者，这个家庭可以压缩规模，只花1百万美元来扩建房屋。这样的话，他们就需要缴1百万美元的税，可以把省下的2百万美元存起来。如此一来，联邦政府赤字会减少1百万美元，而新增的2百万美元储蓄则可以刺激投资、促进增长。无论哪种情况，国家都能获益，而且这个富有家庭无需做出任何真正的牺牲。因为如果所有人都扩建房屋，其结果只会导致人们对住房的要求越来越高。由于存在消费税，大多数邻居也会缩小自家房屋的扩建规模。”

    如大家所见，这种税制的策略之一是削弱消费动力。如果挥霍性消费减少，钱比别人少一事就不会对穷人造成过大的困扰。许多行为研究都表明，较之绝对富裕程度，相对富裕程度对个人幸福感的影响更大。

    这样的措施对美国左翼和右翼政治势力可能都有吸引力。左翼人士有时会对消费文化的影响感到不安，对他们来说，这种税制可以降低人们的消费积极性。同时，鼓励储蓄和投资的措施将受到右翼人士的欢迎。

    然而，累进制消费税要真正具有递增特性，还需要征收高额遗产税，以免富人通过利息收入实现财富代代递增。但盖茨认为这不成问题，因为我们有能力征收遗产税，而且他“深信”该政策行之有效。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie

    “Under such a tax, people would report not only their income but also their annual savings, as many already do under 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts. A family’s annual consumption is simply the difference between its income and its annual savings. That amount, minus a standard deduction—say, $30,000 for a family of four—would be the family’s taxable consumption. Rates would start low, like 10 percent. A family that earned $50,000 and saved $5,000 would thus have taxable consumption of $15,000.”

    “Consider a family that spends $10 million a year and is deciding whether to add a $2 million wing to its mansion. If the top marginal tax rate on consumption were 100 percent, the project would cost $4 million. The additional tax payment would reduce the federal deficit by $2 million. Alternatively, the family could scale back, building only a $1 million addition. Then it would pay $1 million in additional tax and could deposit $2 million in savings. The federal deficit would fall by $1 million, and the additional savings would stimulate investment, promoting growth. Either way, the nation would come out ahead with no real sacrifice required of the wealthy family, because when all build larger houses, the result is merely to redefine what constitutes acceptable housing. With a consumption tax in place, most neighbors would also scale back the new wings on their mansions.”

    As you can see, one of the strategies behind this tax regime is to reduce the incentive to consume. With less conspicuous consumption, the poor would suffer from the negative effects of having less than those around them. As many behavioral studies have shown, relative wealth has more of an impact on personal happiness than absolute wealth.

    Such a regime could appeal to both the right and left sides of the political spectrum. For those on the left, who are sometimes uncomfortable with the effects of a culture based around consumption, this tax would discourage such behavior. Meanwhile, a regime that encourages savings and investment would appeal to conservatives.

    But for a progressive consumption tax to be truly progressive, there would need to be a hefty estate tax to prevent the rich from simply letting their wealth grow over generations through interest income. But Gates argues this is not a problem, because we have the ability to institute estate taxes, a policy which he is a “big believer” in.