看完巴菲特此文及前天文台長林超英文章〈倫敦暴亂聯想： 繁榮 = 安定？ 〉，我們好應該深思：過去數十年，美英兩國崇商媚富，致力解除管制（deregulation），縱容金融肥貓欺詐掠奪，是何等不仁不義，愚不可及。
延伸閱讀：
書摘：巴菲特對商界的批判
外地評論摘要﹕停止袒護超級富豪
【明報專訊】美國《紐約時報》8月14日評論版文章
作者：Warren E. Buffett（巴菲特）
當我們的領袖要求大家共渡時艱，我發現我和我的富豪朋友卻是例外。當低下階層及中產階級為國民在阿富汗戰鬥，當大部分美國人辛勤為口奔馳，我們這些超級富豪繼續享受特別的稅務寬減，投資經理賺取的數十億美元收入，只需繳付15%的稅，短炒期指十分鐘的投機者與長線投資者繳付的稅率也沒有分別。
國會議員覺得有責任保護這些幸運的富豪，視我們是斑點貓頭鷹或其他稀有動物。有朋友在華府國會多好。
視我們是稀有動物
去年我繳交的入息稅接近700萬美元。看似很多，但這只佔我應課稅收入的17.4%，遠遠低於我辦公室的其他20位同事，他們繳付的入息稅率由33%至41%不等，平均則是36%。若果你的收入來自錢滾錢，你繳付的稅率很可能比我更低，但如果你收入來自每月的工資，你繳付的稅率肯定較我高很多。
美國去年八成政府收入來自入息稅和薪俸稅，超級富豪只繳交15%入息稅，但不必付薪俸稅，中產則要繳交沉重的薪俸稅。上世紀80至90年代，富豪要交的稅遠高於現在，我有時聽到的理論說，巴菲特應該金盆洗手不幹，因為賺錢愈多便要交更多的資本增值稅及股息稅。但我沒有放棄工作，其他富豪也沒有，在我60年的投資生涯中，我未聽聞有任何人因資本增值稅太高而放棄投資賺錢。對那些認為高稅率不利就業的人，我可以指出由1980至2000年這20年間，新增了4000萬個職位。大家知道2000年以後發生什麼情况：較低的稅率、產生更少的就業機會。
1992年，美國最富裕的400個家庭總收入是169億美元，平均繳交29.2%的入息稅；2008年，400個家庭總收入是909億美元，但繳交的入息率跌至21.5%。
我認識很多超級富豪，他們大多是謙謙君子、愛國和飲水思源。他們很多已承諾把大部分身家捐給慈善團體，當大部分國民過艱難的日子時，他們並不介意交多一些稅。
12名國會議員將會着手處理國家的財政，他們需要在未來10年減少1.5萬億美元財赤。即使他們可以超額完成目標，但美國人對國會解決財政問題的信心急降，只有立刻落實具體確切的方案才挽回信心。
讓所有人一起犧牲
我贊成維持絕大多數納稅人的稅務減免，但對於每年賺取超過100萬美元的富戶（2009年約有接近24萬戶），入息稅、股息稅和資本增值稅應立即上調，對於每年賺取超過1000萬元的（2009年約有8000戶），上調的幅度應再增加。
我和我的朋友受偏袒富豪的國會照顧太久了，政府是時候認真考慮讓所有人一起犧牲。
New York Times August 14, 2011
Stop Coddling the Super-Rich
By WARREN E. BUFFETT
Omaha
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
沒有留言:
張貼留言