金融时报:面对事实，交税吧美国人

面对事实，交税吧美国人

本文作者为美国预算与政策优先中心高级研究员贾里德·伯恩斯坦(Jared Bernstein)，他曾担任美国副总统拜登的首席经济顾问。

测试中可能遇到的词汇和知识：

deafening['defnɪŋ] adj.震耳欲聋的；极喧闹的

asymmetric[,æsɪ'metrɪk] adj.不对称的

the Grover Norquist pledge 保守派游说家格罗夫·诺奎斯特推动的反对任何形式加税的誓言，已经有95%的国会共和党议员签了名。

mantra['mæntrə] n.咒语

ruse[ruːz] n.策略，计策；诡计

touted['tautid] adj.被吹捧的

Americans need to face the harsh truth and pay more tax (743 words)

One of the guiding principles of contemporary tax policy in the US is the notion that Americans are terribly overtaxed. Both candidates are running on not raising taxes for the middle classes and Mitt Romney wants to not only make the George W. Bush tax cuts permanent, he wants to cut income tax rates another 20 per cent across the board.

Yet, data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reveal that, when it comes to federal taxation, US households are less taxed now than 30 years ago, and that is not just a function of the recession. The CBO data began in 1979 when the typical, or median, household paid 19 per cent of their income in federal taxes. In 2009, that share had fallen to 11 per cent.

Both economic and policy changes account for the decline in “effective tax rates”. In recessions, progressive tax systems provide automatic tax cuts as declining incomes push households into lower tax brackets. Middle-income households lost an average $6,000 in market-based income, an 11 per cent decline, between 2007 and 2009, but their federal tax bill fell $2,300, or 24 per cent. Thus their effective tax rate fell from 14 per cent to 11 per cent.

But policy changes also played a significant role and the Bush tax cuts have had a large impact on the fall of tax rates ever since. Over the 1980s and 1990s, the overall effective tax rate fluctuated within a narrow band of 20.2 per cent to 22.7 per cent – lower in the Ronald Reagan years, a bit higher in the Bill Clinton years. But from 2000-07, before the recession took hold, they fell by almost 3 percentage points, equal to about $300bn in revenue, or 2 per cent of gross domestic product.

Policy changes lowered taxes in the recession, too. That’s a perfectly legitimate use of tax cuts, but such cuts are supposed to be temporary and reset once the downturn has passed. Yet, every time a tax cut nears expiration, the deafening cry of “tax increase!” frightens politicians such that today’s tax policy is solidly asymmetric: rates can only go down. That makes it impossible to get on a sane fiscal path.

For Republicans who have signed the Grover Norquist pledge to never raise taxes, the misleading mantra that we are overtaxed serves two purposes. First, the wealthiest households get the biggest income boost from any across-the-board cuts.

Second, once the villainy of tax increases is widely accepted, the only way to achieve any deficit savings is through spending cuts. But this is very dangerous logic. The House Republican budget, for example, as authored by Mr Romney or Paul Ryan, would gut virtually every government function outside of Social Security, healthcare and defence.

Barack Obama, backed by Senate Democrats, is calling for the upper-income Bush tax cuts to expire. But contrary to popular belief, Mr Obama has already been an aggressive tax cutter. His cuts have helped considerably in reducing recessionary damage to family incomes, but there needs to be a more robust plan to return to fiscal health.

That plan will have to include tax increases beyond just the wealthiest households, although that is the right place to start. But what should happen next? In Washington, the standard position is “comprehensive tax reform” where we “lower the rates and broaden the base”. While I agree with that in theory, in practice it has become a ruse. From the highly touted Bowles-Simpson plan to the Paul Ryan budget plan, we see many concrete ideas for lower rates, which is what got us into this mess in the first place, and precious few specifics on broadening the base.

The best thing to do, once the economic recovery is solidly under way, is to simply let the Bush tax cuts expire and return to the tax structure that prevailed under Bill Clinton. It cannot be plausibly argued, based on economic outcomes, that the rate structure in those years was counterproductive. Oh, and it also helped deliver a budget surplus.

While I understand and support the fairness argument, I’d urge Democrats to be forthright with the fact that we’re way below where we need to be in terms of revenue collection. We simply can’t begin to meet the challenges we face on the lowest effective tax rates in decades.

It may not be the conventional wisdom, but it is the truth.

请根据你所读到的文章内容，完成以下自测题目：

1.According to the passage, in the days of a former president, the “effective tax rates” went up. Who is this president?

A. George W Bush

B. Bill Clinton

C. Ronald Reagan

D. Mitt Romney

答案(1)

2.What is the writer's attitude towards the Grover Norquist pledge?

A. It is true that we are overtaxed.

B. The middle class benefits the most from current tax cuts.

C. To cut spending is dangerous, so in order to reduce deficit, they must raise taxes.

D. President Obama should also sign it.

答案(2)

3.''Today’s tax policy is solidly asymmetric'', what does the writer mean?

A. The president has a much bigger say in tax policies than the Congress.

B. There's inequality between tax paid by businesses and by households.

C. Tax rates can go down easily but go up with difficulty.

D. The share paid by the poor is becoming bigger and bigger.

答案(3)

4.Which of the following is not the writer's opinion?

A. Romney wants to further reduce the taxes, that's unreasonable.

B. Obama already cut taxes aggressively, that was quite successful.

C. Obama should let G W Bush's tax cuts expire, in order to achieve fiscal health.

D. The tax structure in Bill Clinton's terms is better, although it was a bit counterproductive

答案(4)

* * *

(1) 答案：B.Bill Clinton

解释：B项克林顿总统是正确的。第四段中说:Over the 1980s and 1990s, the overall effective tax rate fluctuated within a narrow band of 20.2 per cent to 22.7 per cent – lower in the Ronald Reagan years, a bit higher in the Bill Clinton years. 而小布什总统任期内也推行各种大规模减税政策。至于罗姆尼，他还没当上总统呢！

(2) 答案：C.To cut spending is dangerous, so in order to reduce deficit, they must raise taxes.

解释：作者说:the misleading mantra that we are overtaxed serves two purposes，一是富人从现有的减税中获益最多，而诺奎斯特希望暂行的减税措施永久化；二是政府开支消减不得，要解决赤字的压力只有增税一条路。作者显然不支持诺奎斯特的主张，因此D也不正确。

(3) 答案：C.Tax rates can go down easily but go up with difficulty.

解释：原文第五段中有原话:that today’s tax policy is solidly asymmetric: rates can only go down.

(4) 答案：D.The tax structure in Bill Clinton's terms is better, although it was a bit counterproductive

解释：ABC三项都是正确的，作者支持奥巴马在金融危机后为中产阶级减税，但认为随着经济好转，消减赤字的压力让政府不应该延长布什减税，更别说进一步减税了。 而D项不是作者的观点，他认为克林顿的高税收政策并未拖累经济。倒数第三段有这么一句话: It cannot be plausibly argued, based on economic outcomes, that the rate structure in those years was counterproductive.