Do tax cuts stimulate the economy? - Jonathan Smith

譯者: Lilian Chiu 審譯者: 至磊Zi Le 黃Ng

When President Ronald Reagan began his first term in 1981,

當隆納‧雷根總統在 1981 年 開始他的第一任任期時，

the US economy was struggling.

美國的經濟相當低迷。

Unemployment rates were high and getting higher,

失業率很高，而且還在攀升，

and in 1979, inflation had peaked at an all-time high for peacetime.

1979 年，

通貨膨脹到達高峰， 創下和平時期的最高記錄。

In an effort to combat these issues,

為了對付這些問題，

Reagan's administration introduced a number of economic policies,

雷根政府採用了許多經濟政策，

including tax cuts for large corporations and high-income earners.

包括讓大企業以及高收入者減稅。

The idea was that tax savings for the rich

概念是，有錢人減稅省下來的錢

would cause extra money to trickle down to everyone else,

會造成有額外的錢涓滴般地 滴到所有其他人身上；

and for that reason,

基於這個理由，

these policies are often referred to as trickle-down economics.

這些政策通常被稱為 「涓滴經濟學」。

From the 80s to the late 90s,

從一九八○到九○年代末，

the US saw one of its longest and strongest periods

是美國歷史上最長也最強的 經濟成長期之一。

of economic growth in history.

Median income rose, as did rates of job creation.

所得中位數上升， 就業機會創造率也上升。

Since then, many politicians have invoked trickle-down theory

從那之後，許多政治人物 就會引用涓滴理論

as a justification for tax cuts—

當作減稅的正當理由——

but did these policies actually work,

但這些政策真的有用嗎？

either in the sense of stimulating economic growth,

不論是在刺激經濟成長方面，

or in terms of improving circumstances for Americans?

或者改善美國人的經濟狀況方面？

Would they work in other circumstances?

在其他情況下，也會有用嗎？

To answer these questions,

要解答這些問題，

the main things to consider are whether the impact of the tax cut

主要要考量的是，

減稅對政府的稅收 所造成的影響是否有害、

on the government’s tax revenue is harmful,

whether the money saved in taxes actually stimulates the economy,

減稅省下的錢是否真的能刺激經濟、

and whether stimulating the economy actually improves people’s lives.

刺激經濟是否真的 能改善人民的生活。

The idea behind tax cuts is that if taxes are too high,

減稅背後的概念是，

如果稅率太高， 人民會比較不願意工作，

people will be less willing to work,

which would ultimately decrease tax revenue.

最終，還是會讓稅收減少。

So at a lower tax rate, the government might actually gain more tax money

所以，稅率較低時，

政府可能其實可以收到更多稅款，

that it can theoretically put towards improving life for its citizens,

理論上可以用來改善其公民的生活，

because people will work more when they get to keep more of their earnings.

因為當人民能保留更多收入， 他們會做更多工作。

Of course, there’s a limit to how much the government can cut taxes:

當然，政府能減多少稅 也是有限制的。

at a zero tax rate there is no tax revenue regardless of how much people are working.

稅率為零時，

不論人民做多少工作， 都不會有稅收。

So while cuts from a very high tax rate might be fine,

當稅率很高的時候，減稅是可行的，

cuts from a lower tax rate might be counterproductive,

但當稅率較低時， 減稅可能會適得其反，

hampering the government's ability to accomplish crucial things.

讓政府綁手綁腳， 很難去完成重要的事。

Tax rates were extremely high when Reagan took office.

雷根就任時，稅率極高，

His administration cut the highest income tax bracket from 70% to 28%

他的政府把最高的所得稅稅級

從 70% 砍到 28%，

and corporation tax from 48% to 34%.

公司稅從 48% 砍到 34% 。

By comparison, as of early 2021,

做個比較，在 2021 年初，

those rates were 37% and 21% respectively.

這兩項稅率分別為 37% 及 21% 。

When tax rates are lower, tax cuts for the wealthy can be harmful.

稅率比較低時，

讓有錢人減稅可能是有害無益。

For example, in 2012 to 2013,

比如，從 2012 年到 2013 年，

lawmakers cut the top tax-rate in the state of Kansas by almost 30%

立法者把堪薩斯州的最高稅率 砍掉了近 30% ，

and reduced some business tax rates to zero.

並將一些營業稅率降為零。

As a result, the government’s balance sheet immediately fell

結果造成政府的資產負債表

立即跌入負值且沒有恢復，

into negative territory and did not recover,

implying that wealthy individuals and companies did not invest

暗示富有的個人及企業

back into the economy.

並沒有把錢投資回經濟中。

In short, the money did not trickle down.

簡言之，錢並沒有涓滴下來。

This appears to be a trend:

這顯然是一種趨勢：

in a study over multiple periods of history and across 18 countries,

在一項針對十八個國家 數段歷史時期所做的研究中，

The London School of Economics found that cutting taxes

倫敦政治經濟學院發現減稅

increased the wealth of the top 1% of people,

會讓最頂端 1% 的人增加財富，

but had little effect on the economy as a whole.

但對整體經濟的影響不大。

In order for tax cuts for the rich to truly stimulate the economy,

為了要讓對富者的減稅政策 能真正刺激經濟，

they would have to spend the saved money

他們必須要把省下的錢花費掉，

putting it back into, for example, local businesses—

把錢用在比如當地的商家上，

but this isn’t what happens in practice.

但實務上的狀況不是這樣。

No economic policy operates in isolation:

沒有任何經濟政策是獨立運作的：

each time and place is unique with multiple policies in place simultaneously,

每個時間地點都有 獨一無二的多項政策同時運行，

so there is only ever one test case for each set of scenarios.

所以每一組情境， 都只會有一個測試案例。

This makes it difficult to deliver definitive rulings on whether

因此會很難斷言一項經濟政策

an economic policy worked,

是否真正有用、

whether something else might have worked better,

其他方式是否會效果更佳，

or whether it would work in a different situation.

或者同樣政策在不同情況下 是否會有用。

And yet, rhetoric around trickle-down economics,

然而，對於涓滴經濟學的說詞，

both during the Reagan era and since,

不論在雷根時代或之後，

often promises something definitive:

通常都會絕對地承諾：

that spending by society’s richest members on things other than taxes

社會上最有錢的人 若把錢花在繳稅以外的地方，

directly improves the financial circumstances of the less wealthy.

會直接改善較不富有者的財務狀況。

And there’s not much evidence to support that.

但沒有太多證據支持這個論點。