silvatone

注册日期:2012-07-06
访问总量:18600次

menu网络日志正文menu

税收改革到底谁受益?从一个喝啤酒的比喻可以看出


发表时间:+-

下面这个关于喝啤酒的经济学比喻出自University of Georgia economics professor David R. Kamerschen之手:

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. “Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.” Drinks for the ten now cost just $80. The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men– the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share? They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. “I only got a dollar out of the $20,” declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, “but he got $10!” “Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!” “That’s true!!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!” “Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison. “We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!”

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill! And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


浏览(575)
thumb_up(0)
评论(1)
  • 当前共有1条评论
  • gugeren

    非难这次美国税改的说法之一,除了如同本博文所说,是为富人多省税以外,还说是加剧了美国联邦收支的进一步不平衡,增加了联邦赤字预算。

    粗粗一看,似乎有理,但是再仔细想想,不对了。

    知道内情的人们都知道,美国联邦预算的收入,其主要来源于私人的税缴,即对普通美国人的税收,而并非来自美国企业的税缴。

    这次美国税改,主要是为了减少美国企业的负担,提高美国企业留在美国的兴趣。

    这次税改与减少个人税收负担的关系并不大。

    如果有人担心美国预算赤字进一步增加,那就要考虑向美国的普通人增税。这也是如果这次民主党上台后所打的算盘。

    当然,如果增税,只能向博文中第5至第10人增税,而不会向前4个穷人增税。

    增税,对于富人影响不会很大;而对于量入为出的中产阶级,就应该是不小的负担了。

    矛盾就在这儿:想迅速减少联邦赤字,就要马上增税;若要减少个人税务上的负担,肯定不会想增税的吧?

    事情就这么简单。

    如果通过减少企业税收,从企业这个产生税收的源头来开源,从而减少联邦的赤字,岂不是一件好事?

    谁有更好的开源的方法(不讲节流;那谁都会说)来增加联邦收入,以减少联邦的赤字,可以提出来。

    屏蔽 举报回复