社會稅制體系遠比火星代數更復雜

Tax is a divisive subject but everyone seems to agree on one point: taxes are too complicated and should be simpler. Unfortunately, tax systems did not receive the memo.

稅收是一個容易讓人產生分歧的話題，但所有人似乎都同意一點：稅收過於複雜，應該被簡化。遺憾的是，稅收體系不知道這一點。

In the UK only a few years ago, almost everyone in work used to be taxed at a marginal rate of either 31 per cent or 41 per cent, depending on how much they earned. (If Brits do not recognise those numbers, it is because the UK has two cumulative systems of income tax, one of which goes by the code name of “national insurance”.)

僅僅在幾年前，在英國幾乎所有的職場人士還是按照收入的多少，以31%或41%的邊際稅率交稅。（如果英國人看不懂那些數據，那是因爲英國有兩套累計的收入稅制度，其中一套是以“國民保險”的名義徵收的。）

The system is trickier today than Martian algebra. Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal studies points out that, over different levels of income, a non-working spouse with two children will be taxed at marginal rates of 12 per cent, 32 per cent, infinity, 42 per cent, 60 per cent, 42 per cent, 60 per cent, 42 per cent and 47 per cent. You might ask what kind of muppet designed a tax schedule like that, and one answer would be George Osborne, chancellor of the exchequer, and Alistair Darling, his predecessor – the last two men to be in charge of the UK tax system.

如今英國的稅收體系比火星代數還要複雜。倫敦財政研究所(Institute for Fiscal Studies)的保羅•約翰遜(Paul Johnson)指出，按照不同的收入水平，一個不工作、有兩個孩子的配偶將被以12%、32%、無窮大、42%、60%、42%、60%、42%和47%的邊際稅率徵稅。你或許會問，哪個傻瓜設計了這樣的稅收制度，有人會說是英國財政大臣喬治•奧斯本(George Osborne)及其前任阿利斯泰爾•達林(Alistair Darling)——最後兩個負責英國稅收體系的人士。

Another answer would be that this is just the sort of thing that happens without diligent maintenance. Window frames rot. Iron structures rust. Tax systems become complex.

還有人會說，這只是沒用心維護纔會發生的事情。窗框會腐蝕，鐵結構會生鏽。稅收制度會變得複雜。

Having nine different marginal tax rates is an ugly sign that things are not well. There are others. Cereal bars attract value added tax at 20 per cent but flapjacks enjoy a zero rate; vegetable chips are tax-free if the vegetable in question is not a potato; dried fruit is subject to VAT unless destined for a cake. On a gingerbread man, chocolate icing attracts a substantial VAT liability unless the icing constitutes the eyes. There are more things in tax accounting, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

有9種不同邊際稅率顯示出，英國稅收體制狀況不佳。英國稅制還有其他問題。穀物棒的增值稅稅率是20%，但燕麥餅卻享受零稅率。除了土豆脆片以外，其他蔬菜脆片都免稅；如果幹果不是用於製作蛋糕，就會被徵收增值稅。就薑餅人來說，巧克力糖衣如果不是用來做眼睛的話，就會被以高額稅率徵收增值稅。稅收會計中的花樣之多超出任何人的想象。

If a tax break for unfrosted gingerbread seems uniquely British in its eccentricity, it is not. Officials in New York state have been obliged to rule on the tax status of burritos. (Legally they are sandwiches and attract sales tax of 8 per cent.) Or consider Pillow Pets, a stuffed toy/ pillow whose slogan – “It’s a pillow, it’s a pet, it’s a Pillow Pet” – poses a dilemma for US Customs. For the purposes of levying a tariff, is it a pillow? Or is it a tariff-free toy pet?

對無糖薑餅免稅似乎是英國獨有的古怪舉措，但其實並非如此。紐約州的官員們被迫就墨西哥玉米煎餅的稅收地位做出決定。（從法律上說，它們是三明治，應按照8%的銷售稅稅率納稅）或者想想Pillow Pets，這是一種填充玩具/枕頭，它的標語是“它是一個枕頭，它是一個寵物，它是一個枕頭寵物”。這種Pillow Pets讓美國海關陷入兩難。從徵收關稅的角度來說，它是枕頭？還是一款免關稅的玩具寵物？

Then there are tax subsidies for agricultural land in places such as Florida. Agricultural land is no easier to define than a flapjack or a sandwich. Rent a cow, let it graze on your garden or vacant lot; if that is not agriculture, what is?

然後是在弗羅裏達州等地的農田稅收補貼。定義農地不比燕麥餅或三明治容易多少。租上一頭母牛，讓它在你的花園或空地上吃草，如果這不是農業，又是什麼？

All this matters not just because the rules are hard to understand and expensive to obey but also because taxes shape our behaviour. The “camelback” houses of late 19th century New Orleans, with a hump of two storeys at the rear and a long single-storey snout stretching to the street, were tax-efficient because property taxes were levied based on the number of storeys at the front of the house. Abba’s outlandish outfits are reported to have been inspired by tax rules: they were tax-deductible only if they were too outré to be worn anywhere other than on stage.

所有這些之所以重要，不僅僅是因爲這些法規很難理解，守法成本高，而且還因爲稅收影響着我們的行爲。19世紀末新奧爾良市的“駝背”房——尾部有兩層隆起，一個長長的單獨樓層延伸至街道——是稅收高效率的，因爲房產稅是按照屋前樓層的數量徵收的。有報道稱，阿巴樂隊(Abba)的怪異服裝是稅法激發的：這些服裝只有怪異得無法在舞臺以外的地方穿，才能享受減免稅。

These are trivial examples of tax-efficient charm but the same principle can be harnessed for a far greater good: a carbon tax to shift our energy system towards low-carbon fuels. Well-designed taxes can raise revenue while rewarding green behaviour.

這些是免稅魅力的瑣碎例子，但同樣原則可以用於更有意義的事情：推動我們的能源體系轉向低碳燃料的碳稅。設計良好的稅收可以在獎賞綠色行爲的同時，帶來財政收入。

Meanwhile complex, illogical taxes raise less revenue while rewarding clever accountants. There has been outrage over celebrity tax-dodging in the UK but the tax avoidance schemes usually involve a government attempt to provide a tax incentive for the British film industry or some other hobbyhorse.

與此同時，複雜而不合邏輯的稅收獎賞聰明的會計人員，卻減少了財政收入。人們對英國名人逃稅感到憤怒，但此類避稅項目通常牽涉到政府爲英國電影業或其他娛樂業提供稅收激勵的企圖。

What is behind such insanities? Partly, absurd loopholes exist because special interest groups demand them; hence the subsidies for land with cows on it. Partly, voters are given the tax systems they deserve because we sympathise with highly vocal losers whenever a loophole is closed and we fall for simple tricks that hide taxes behind a veil of complication.

此類不理智行爲背後的原因是什麼？一方面，之所以存在荒謬的漏洞，是因爲特殊利益集團要求這些漏洞，比如對有母牛的土地給予補貼。另一方面，選民之所以活該得到這種稅收體系，是因爲每當稅收漏洞被堵住時，我們同情那些吵吵嚷嚷的輸家，而且我們容易被把稅收藏在複雜面紗後的簡單伎倆欺騙。

The UK’s two-tier income tax system is a good example. Basic income tax rates have tended to fall over time, while national insurance rates have tended to rise. True income tax rates for the typical worker are similar to those of 35 years ago but they seem much lower. The sleight of hand is politically convenient but increases complexity, creates unfairness and opens opportunities for tax avoidance.

英國的雙層所得稅體系是一個很好的例子。基本所得稅的稅率往往隨着時間推移而下降，而國民保險的稅率往往會上升。對普通工薪階層來說，實際所得稅稅率與35年前類似，但它們看起來要低得多。玩弄手腕是政治上的需要，但它加大了複雜性，導致不公，併爲逃稅創造了機會。

It is tempting, then, to call for a radical simplification, for taxes simple enough to write on the back of a postcard. But this ignores the third reason that taxes are complex, which is that fair taxation is a genuinely complex business. This year’s piecemeal reform efforts become next year’s loopholes.

因此人們會忍不住呼籲對稅制進行徹底的簡化，呼籲將稅法簡化到可以寫在一張明信片上。但這忽視了稅收復雜的第三個理由，那就是公平稅收是相當複雜的事情。今年零碎的改革努力到明年就成爲稅收漏洞。

Only radical, systemic reform has much chance of success – and it may be less elegant than some reformers hope. A per-person “poll tax” was introduced in the UK 25 years ago, and promptly ended the premiership of Margaret Thatcher. It was undoubtedly simple – but in taxation, as in life, simplicity is not the only virtue.

只有系統性的根本改革纔有可觀的成功機會，而且它可能沒有某些改革家預期的那麼簡潔。25年前英國出臺了對每個人徵收的“人頭稅”，結果很快導致英國首相瑪格麗特•撒切爾(Margaret Thatcher)的下臺。“人頭稅”無疑很簡單，但稅收和生活一樣，簡單並非唯一的美德。