立即打开
大刀阔斧改革美国税收体制的时候到了

大刀阔斧改革美国税收体制的时候到了

BOB LORD,DYLAN DUSSEAULT 2022-10-28
在过去50年中,累进税制在美国税收系统中日渐式微。

图片来源:ANDREW HARRER - BLOOMBERG - GETTY IMAGES

三年前,伊曼纽尔∙赛斯与加布里埃尔∙祖克曼出版了其书作《不公正的胜利》(The Triumph of Injustice)。该书用赤裸裸的语言讲述了美国税收系统的累进税制是如何彻底崩塌的。

他们的分析显示,即便计算所有税收,美国最富有1%家庭的总税率基本上与最底层50%家庭相当。对于美国最富有的0.25%家庭来说,总税率甚至更低。

如果一个社会向入不敷出家庭征收的税率等同于或高于向百万富翁和亿万富翁征收的税率,那么这个社会是不公平的而且是不可持续的。有鉴于如今的税收体制是在助长而不是缩小不公平性,那么未来唯一的出路就是:美国有必要改变向超级富有人群征税的方式。

在联邦和州层面,两个长期趋势中已经显现出这一问题。第一,所得税率的累进性已被削弱。需要明确的是,这里所说的累进并非是一个政治概念,而是一个长期存在的原则,即相对于收入较低人群,高收入人群可以而且应该拿出更大一部分收入来交税。与此同时,政府对所得税的依赖程度已经有所降低,而是更依赖于累退税,例如联邦层面的薪资税以及州或地方层面的财产和销售税。这些举措给中产和底层美国民众带来的影响要大得多。

对于美国底层99%的民众来说,在某种程度上,所得税率在联邦层面依然是累进的。机制很简单:赚的越多,支付的比例就越高。然而,针对最富有1%人群的累进税制基本上被取消了。年收入超过65万美元与年收入超过1亿美元在税收上的待遇没有什么区别。他们都属于最富有的1%人群,但他们在真实生活中却有着天壤之别。然而,我们却将其放在了同一个税收框架中。

不过,事情并非一直都是这样的。1960年,美国的不公平性降至其最低水平,当时有26个所得税框架,远超现在的7个。这种大幅缩减在方向上是错误的。美国税收体制中消失的累进特性需要重塑,从而帮助解决美国财富过于集中的问题。

这也是为什么美国制定《End the Bracket Racket Act》法案的原因,该法案新增了5个税收框架,从100万-500万美元区间起始50%的所得税率累进至1亿美元以上所有收入90%的所得税率,与美国在20世纪40年代和50年代对最高收入所征收的税率类似。

在州与地方层面,税收基本上都是累退性的,对贫困和中产家庭的冲击比富有人群大得多,但有六个州和哥伦比亚特区除外。在华盛顿州这个2018年被美国税收与经济政策研究所(Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy)评为税收体制累退性最为严重的州,州与地方税收消耗了底层20%人群17.8%的家庭收入,但仅消耗了最富有1%人群3%的家庭收入。为了扭转这一趋势,需要让累进所得税变为一种比销售税、消费税和财产税更具吸引力的收入来源。

当前,各州都加入了所得税逐底竞赛,大幅降低了所得税率,尤其是富有人群的适用税率,并希望借此来吸引(或留住)富有居民以及他们所经营的企业。美国的法案将为已支付的州和地方所得税提供针对联邦所得税的退税,从而阻止这类竞赛。各州能够强制征收的所得税将高达联邦税率的约17%,并让其居民获得100%已支付州税的退税。如果你的联邦税单为12万美元,那么你会获得已支付所有州和地方所得税的退税,最高2万美元,继而让联邦税单削减至10万美元。

这类退税将取代当前获准推行的所有州税减税,后者每位纳税人当前的上限为1万美元,并将于2026年到期。这类退税在对待已支付州和地方所得税方面要慷慨的多(退税比减税更实惠),不过它会彻底取消财产税、销售税和消费税的减税,而大多数美国人并不会或很少从这些税种中受益。

这种区分至关重要。缴纳州和地方所得税是不可避免的。另一方面,财产税、销售税和消费税的缴纳则基本与可自由支配支出挂钩。联邦税收系统没有理由为购买豪宅、游艇和私人飞机提供补贴。

通过将退税完全与所得税挂钩,将消除各州强行降低所得税税率或完全取消所得税的动机,而当前很多州在降税方面是乐此不疲。此举会促使各州从依靠累退性的销售税、消费税和财产税转而依赖累进性的所得税,并终结“税收竞争”这一破坏性循环,它实际上是一场税收战,没有赢家可言。

《不公正的胜利》出版三年之后,亿万富翁的财富一路高歌,而数千万普通美国民众的生活条件却不断恶化。如果不采取大刀阔斧的行动来重塑美国税收系统的公正性,那么这一现象只会不断恶化。《End the Bracket Racket Act》法案将阻止美国滑入不公平性的深渊,并成为美国在税收公平这一正确方向上的巨大进步。

执业35年的税法律师鲍勃∙洛德(Bob Lord)是美国爱国百万富翁组织(Patriotic Millionaires)的税务政策顾问。迪伦∙杜索(Dylan Dusseault)是美国爱国百万富翁组织的政策总监。(财富中文网)

Fortune.com上评论文章中表达的观点仅代表作者个人观点,并不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:冯丰

审校:夏林

三年前,伊曼纽尔∙赛斯与加布里埃尔∙祖克曼出版了其书作《不公正的胜利》(The Triumph of Injustice)。该书用赤裸裸的语言讲述了美国税收系统的累进税制是如何彻底崩塌的。

他们的分析显示,即便计算所有税收,美国最富有1%家庭的总税率基本上与最底层50%家庭相当。对于美国最富有的0.25%家庭来说,总税率甚至更低。

如果一个社会向入不敷出家庭征收的税率等同于或高于向百万富翁和亿万富翁征收的税率,那么这个社会是不公平的而且是不可持续的。有鉴于如今的税收体制是在助长而不是缩小不公平性,那么未来唯一的出路就是:美国有必要改变向超级富有人群征税的方式。

在联邦和州层面,两个长期趋势中已经显现出这一问题。第一,所得税率的累进性已被削弱。需要明确的是,这里所说的累进并非是一个政治概念,而是一个长期存在的原则,即相对于收入较低人群,高收入人群可以而且应该拿出更大一部分收入来交税。与此同时,政府对所得税的依赖程度已经有所降低,而是更依赖于累退税,例如联邦层面的薪资税以及州或地方层面的财产和销售税。这些举措给中产和底层美国民众带来的影响要大得多。

对于美国底层99%的民众来说,在某种程度上,所得税率在联邦层面依然是累进的。机制很简单:赚的越多,支付的比例就越高。然而,针对最富有1%人群的累进税制基本上被取消了。年收入超过65万美元与年收入超过1亿美元在税收上的待遇没有什么区别。他们都属于最富有的1%人群,但他们在真实生活中却有着天壤之别。然而,我们却将其放在了同一个税收框架中。

不过,事情并非一直都是这样的。1960年,美国的不公平性降至其最低水平,当时有26个所得税框架,远超现在的7个。这种大幅缩减在方向上是错误的。美国税收体制中消失的累进特性需要重塑,从而帮助解决美国财富过于集中的问题。

这也是为什么美国制定《End the Bracket Racket Act》法案的原因,该法案新增了5个税收框架,从100万-500万美元区间起始50%的所得税率累进至1亿美元以上所有收入90%的所得税率,与美国在20世纪40年代和50年代对最高收入所征收的税率类似。

在州与地方层面,税收基本上都是累退性的,对贫困和中产家庭的冲击比富有人群大得多,但有六个州和哥伦比亚特区除外。在华盛顿州这个2018年被美国税收与经济政策研究所(Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy)评为税收体制累退性最为严重的州,州与地方税收消耗了底层20%人群17.8%的家庭收入,但仅消耗了最富有1%人群3%的家庭收入。为了扭转这一趋势,需要让累进所得税变为一种比销售税、消费税和财产税更具吸引力的收入来源。

当前,各州都加入了所得税逐底竞赛,大幅降低了所得税率,尤其是富有人群的适用税率,并希望借此来吸引(或留住)富有居民以及他们所经营的企业。美国的法案将为已支付的州和地方所得税提供针对联邦所得税的退税,从而阻止这类竞赛。各州能够强制征收的所得税将高达联邦税率的约17%,并让其居民获得100%已支付州税的退税。如果你的联邦税单为12万美元,那么你会获得已支付所有州和地方所得税的退税,最高2万美元,继而让联邦税单削减至10万美元。

这类退税将取代当前获准推行的所有州税减税,后者每位纳税人当前的上限为1万美元,并将于2026年到期。这类退税在对待已支付州和地方所得税方面要慷慨的多(退税比减税更实惠),不过它会彻底取消财产税、销售税和消费税的减税,而大多数美国人并不会或很少从这些税种中受益。

这种区分至关重要。缴纳州和地方所得税是不可避免的。另一方面,财产税、销售税和消费税的缴纳则基本与可自由支配支出挂钩。联邦税收系统没有理由为购买豪宅、游艇和私人飞机提供补贴。

通过将退税完全与所得税挂钩,将消除各州强行降低所得税税率或完全取消所得税的动机,而当前很多州在降税方面是乐此不疲。此举会促使各州从依靠累退性的销售税、消费税和财产税转而依赖累进性的所得税,并终结“税收竞争”这一破坏性循环,它实际上是一场税收战,没有赢家可言。

《不公正的胜利》出版三年之后,亿万富翁的财富一路高歌,而数千万普通美国民众的生活条件却不断恶化。如果不采取大刀阔斧的行动来重塑美国税收系统的公正性,那么这一现象只会不断恶化。《End the Bracket Racket Act》法案将阻止美国滑入不公平性的深渊,并成为美国在税收公平这一正确方向上的巨大进步。

执业35年的税法律师鲍勃∙洛德(Bob Lord)是美国爱国百万富翁组织(Patriotic Millionaires)的税务政策顾问。迪伦∙杜索(Dylan Dusseault)是美国爱国百万富翁组织的政策总监。(财富中文网)

Fortune.com上评论文章中表达的观点仅代表作者个人观点,并不代表《财富》杂志的观点和立场。

译者:冯丰

审校:夏林

Three years ago, Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman published The Triumph of Injustice, which outlined, in stark terms, how the progressivity of America’s tax system has completely collapsed.

Their analysis showed that, when all taxes are taken into account, a household in the top one percent would have a total tax rate essentially equal to a household in the bottom 50%. For one of the 400 richest households in the country, the total tax would be even lower.

A society that taxes a family with barely enough income to cover basic living expenses the same as–or higher than–the rate it taxes mega-millionaires and billionaires is unfair and unsustainable. Facing a tax code that now contributes to, rather than shrinks, inequality, the only way forward is clear: We need to change the way we tax the ultra-rich..

At both the federal and state level, this problem has risen from two long-term trends. First, income tax rates have become less progressive. To be clear, by progressive, we refer not to a political ideology, but to the longstanding principle that those with larger incomes can and should pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than those with lower incomes.

Meanwhile, governments have become less reliant on income taxes and more reliant on more regressive taxes, such as payroll tax at the federal level and property and sales tax at the state and local level. These measures disproportionately impact middle-class and poorer Americans.

Income tax rates have remained somewhat progressive at the federal level for the bottom 99% of the population. It’s simple: The more money you make, the higher percentage you pay. However, progressivity within the top 1% percent has been virtually eliminated. An annual income over $650,000 is treated no differently than an annual income in excess of $100 million. They’re both in the top 1%–but they are worlds apart in reality. And yet, we put them in the same tax bracket.

It wasn’t always this way. In 1960, when inequality in America was near its lowest level, we had 26 income tax brackets, far more than the seven we have today. This radical scaledown was wrongheaded. It must be reversed. We need to restore the lost progressivity in our tax system to help to address the extreme concentration of wealth in America.

That’s why we’ve developed the End the Bracket Racket Act, a proposal to add five new tax brackets, starting with a 50% rate on income between $1 million and $5 million and progressing to a 90% rate on all income over $100 million, like the U.S. once had on the highest incomes in the 1940s and 50s.

At the state and local levels, taxes are largely regressive, hitting poor and middle class families much harder than the rich, in all but six states and the District of Columbia. In Washington, rated by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy as having the most regressive state tax system in 2018, state and local taxes consumed 17.8% of family income for those in the bottom 20%, but only 3% of family income for those in the top 1%. To reverse this trend, we need to make progressive income taxes a more attractive revenue source compared to sales, excise, and property taxes.

Currently, states are engaged in a race to the bottom on income taxes, frantically reducing their income tax rates, especially rates applicable to the rich, in hopes of attracting (or keeping) rich residents and the businesses they run. Our proposal would discourage such behavior by adding a credit against federal income tax for state and local income tax payments. States would be able to impose income taxes up to about 17% of the federal rate, and have their residents receive a credit for 100% of state taxes paid. If your federal tax bill is $120,000, you would get a credit for the entirety of your state and local income tax payments up to $20,000, cutting your federal bill to $100,000.

This credit would replace the deduction currently allowed for all state tax payments, currently subject to a cap of $10,000 per taxpayer that is scheduled to expire in 2026. It would be significantly more generous in its treatment of state and local income tax payments (a credit is more valuable than a deduction), but it would eliminate entirely the deduction for property, sales, and excise tax payments, which most Americans receive little to no benefit from..

This distinction is essential. State and local income tax payments are unavoidable. On the other hand, property, sales, and excise tax payments are mostly associated with discretionary purchases. There is no reason for the federal tax system to subsidize the purchase of megamansions, yachts, and private jets.

By focusing the credit entirely on income taxes, we would remove any incentive for states to impose income tax at lower rates or worse–eliminate income taxes entirely, as many states have done. It would motivate states to move from regressive sales, excise, and property taxes to progressive income taxes and end the destructive cycle of “tax competition,” which in reality is tax warfare, with no winners.

In the three years since The Triumph of Injustice was published, billionaire wealth has skyrocketed while living conditions for millions of ordinary Americans have worsened. Without bold action to restore justice in America’s tax system, this will only get worse. The End the Bracket Racket Act will stop our slide into inequality, and be a huge step in the right direction for tax fairness.

Bob Lord, a tax lawyer for 35 years, is senior advisor on tax policy for the Patriotic Millionaires. Dylan Dusseault is policy director for the Patriotic Millionaires.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

热读文章
热门视频
扫描二维码下载财富APP