别再娇惯超级富豪(《纽约时报》2011-08-14)
我们的领导人呼吁“共担牺牲”,可发出呼吁时,他们偏偏放过了我。我特意问了问身边那几位超级富豪朋友,想知道他们要承受怎样的痛苦,结果发现他们也同样毫发无损。当穷人和中产阶级替我们在阿富汗浴血奋战、当大多数美国人为糊口苦苦挣扎时,我们这些超级富豪却照旧享受着格外优厚的税收减免。我们当中有些人是投资经理,日常工作动辄进账数十亿美元,却获准把这笔收入算作“附带权益”,只按 15% 的优惠税率纳税。还有人持有股指期货不过 10 分钟,其中 60% 的收益却按 15% 征税,仿佛他们是长期投资者。这些恩典连同种种好处,都是华盛顿的立法者赐予我们的——他们总觉得有责任护着我们,就好像我们是斑点猫头鹰之类的濒危物种。在高位上有朋友,感觉真不错。
OUR leaders have asked for “shared sacrifice.” But when they did the asking, they spared me. I checked with my mega-rich friends to learn what pain they were expecting. They, too, were left untouched. While the poor and middle class fight for us in Afghanistan, and while most Americans struggle to make ends meet, we mega-rich continue to get our extraordinary tax breaks. Some of us are investment managers who earn billions from our daily labors but are allowed to classify our income as “carried interest,” thereby getting a bargain 15 percent tax rate. Others own stock index futures for 10 minutes and have 60 percent of their gain taxed at 15 percent, as if they’d been long-term investors. These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some other endangered species. It’s nice to have friends in high places.
相关报道 时报专题:所得税 去年我的联邦税单——包括我缴纳的所得税,以及由我本人和以我名义缴纳的薪资税——共计 6,938,744 美元。听上去是一大笔钱。可这只占我应税收入的 17.4%,反倒比我们办公室其余 20 个人中任何一位的比例都低。他们的税负从 33% 到 41% 不等,平均为 36%。
Related Coverage Times Topic: Income Tax Last year my federal tax bill — the income tax I paid, as well as payroll taxes paid by me and on my behalf — was $6,938,744. That sounds like a lot of money. But what I paid was only 17.4 percent of my taxable income — and that’s actually a lower percentage than was paid by any of the other 20 people in our office. Their tax burdens ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent and averaged 36 percent.
图片来源 Kelly Blair 如果你像我某些超级富豪朋友那样靠钱生钱,你的比例或许比我还低。但如果你靠一份工作挣钱,你的比例必定高过我——而且多半会高出一大截。
Credit Kelly Blair If you make money with money, as some of my super-rich friends do, your percentage may be a bit lower than mine. But if you earn money from a job, your percentage will surely exceed mine — most likely by a lot.
相关评论 社论:税收的真相 2011 年 8 月 6 日 要弄明白其中缘由,得先看看政府收入从何而来。去年,政府收入约有 80% 来自个人所得税和薪资税。超级富豪的大部分收入只按 15% 的税率缴纳所得税,薪资税则几乎分文不出。中产阶级的境况截然不同:他们通常落在 15% 和 25% 的所得税档,还要额外背上一笔沉重的薪资税。上世纪八九十年代,富人的税率高得多,我的比例当时不过居于中游。我偶尔听到一种说法:面对资本利得和股息的高税率,我本该大发雷霆、拒绝投资。可我没有拒绝,别人也没有。我跟投资者打了 60 年交道,还从没见过谁——哪怕在 1976 至 1977 年资本利得税率高达 39.9% 的时候——因为潜在收益的税率就对一笔明智的投资避而远之。人们投资是为了赚钱,潜在的税负从未吓退过他们。至于那些声称高税率会扼杀就业的人,我想指出:1980 年到 2000 年间,美国净增了近 4000 万个就业岗位。之后的事情大家都清楚:税率更低了,新增就业却少得多。自 1992 年起,美国国税局便从申报收入最高的 400 名美国人的报税表中汇总数据。1992 年,这前 400 人的应税收入合计 169 亿美元,就此缴纳 29.2% 的联邦税。到了 2008 年,最高 400 人的收入总额已飙升至 909 亿美元——人均高达 2.274 亿美元,令人咋舌——所缴税率却跌到了 21.5%。
Related in Opinion Editorial: The Truth About Taxes AUG. 6, 2011 To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot. Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends. I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation. Since 1992, the I.R.S. has compiled data from the returns of the 400 Americans reporting the largest income. In 1992, the top 400 had aggregate taxable income of $16.9 billion and paid federal taxes of 29.2 percent on that sum. In 2008, the aggregate income of the highest 400 had soared to $90.9 billion — a staggering $227.4 million on average — but the rate paid had fallen to 21.5 percent.
这里我说的税只算联邦所得税,但可以断定,对这 400 人而言,薪资税跟所得税一比几乎微不足道。事实上,2008 年这 400 人里有 88 人根本没申报任何工资收入,可每一位都申报了资本利得。我的某些同道也许不爱工作,却个个热衷投资。(这一点我深有同感。)我熟识不少超级富豪,总体而言,他们都是极为正派的人。他们热爱美国,也感念这个国家给予他们的机遇。许多人已加入“捐赠誓言”,承诺把大部分财富投入慈善。多数人并不介意被要求多缴税,尤其在这么多同胞正饱受煎熬的时候。十二名国会议员即将挑起重整国家财政的重担。他们受命拿出一套方案,把十年赤字至少削减 1.5 万亿美元。然而,他们必须做到的远不止于此。美国人正迅速对国会解决国家财政难题的能力失去信心。唯有立即、切实且分量十足的行动,才能阻止这份怀疑滑向绝望——而那种情绪一旦蔓延,便会自我应验。这十二人的头等要务,是砍掉一些连富裕的美国也兑现不了的未来承诺,这里必须省下大笔资金。之后,他们应转向收入这一头。我会让 99.7% 的纳税人税率保持不变,并继续执行目前把雇员薪资税缴纳部分下调两个百分点的政策——这项减税帮的是穷人和中产阶级,他们需要能争取到的每一分优惠。但对那些年收入超过 100 万美元的人——2009 年这样的家庭有 236,883 户——我会立刻对超过 100 万美元的应税收入加税,当然也包括股息和资本利得。而对年收入达到或超过 1000 万美元的人——2009 年有 8,274 户——我建议再加一档。我和我的朋友们,被这个偏袒亿万富翁的国会娇纵得太久了。是时候让政府认真对待“共担牺牲”了。沃伦·E·巴菲特是伯克希尔·哈撒韦公司的董事长兼首席执行官。
The taxes I refer to here include only federal income tax, but you can be sure that any payroll tax for the 400 was inconsequential compared to income. In fact, 88 of the 400 in 2008 reported no wages at all, though every one of them reported capital gains. Some of my brethren may shun work but they all like to invest. (I can relate to that.) I know well many of the mega-rich and, by and large, they are very decent people. They love America and appreciate the opportunity this country has given them. Many have joined the Giving Pledge, promising to give most of their wealth to philanthropy. Most wouldn’t mind being told to pay more in taxes as well, particularly when so many of their fellow citizens are truly suffering. Twelve members of Congress will soon take on the crucial job of rearranging our country’s finances. They’ve been instructed to devise a plan that reduces the 10-year deficit by at least $1.5 trillion. It’s vital, however, that they achieve far more than that. Americans are rapidly losing faith in the ability of Congress to deal with our country’s fiscal problems. Only action that is immediate, real and very substantial will prevent that doubt from morphing into hopelessness. That feeling can create its own reality. Job one for the 12 is to pare down some future promises that even a rich America can’t fulfill. Big money must be saved here. The 12 should then turn to the issue of revenues. I would leave rates for 99.7 percent of taxpayers unchanged and continue the current 2-percentage-point reduction in the employee contribution to the payroll tax. This cut helps the poor and the middle class, who need every break they can get. But for those making more than $1 million — there were 236,883 such households in 2009 — I would raise rates immediately on taxable income in excess of $1 million, including, of course, dividends and capital gains. And for those who make $10 million or more — there were 8,274 in 2009 — I would suggest an additional increase in rate. My friends and I have been coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress. It’s time for our government to get serious about shared sacrifice. Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.