
美国最负盛名的投资家以及华尔街最具权势银行的掌舵人向美国政府传递出清晰信号:提高富人税负。伯克希尔-哈撒韦公司首席执行官沃伦·巴菲特和摩根大通首席执行官杰米·戴蒙,均主张提高富人税负,以实现公平,并解决不断膨胀的联邦赤字问题。
国会共和党阵营历来对提高富人税负持反对立场,但据报道,他们正在考虑征收所谓的“百万富翁税”,这凸显唐纳德·特朗普总统所倡导的民粹主义理念对该党政策导向的影响。尽管该提案遭到了党内诸多重量级人物的反对,但有人提出以征收此税为手段,为小费、加班费及社保福利的税收减免措施提供资金支持,并助力延长2017年《减税和就业法案》中相关条款的适用期限。
不过,撇开这一争论不谈,提高高收入者所得税恐怕难以让像巴菲特、戴蒙、埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)和杰夫·贝佐斯(Jeff Bezos)这样的亿万富翁向政府缴纳更多的税款。究其原因,超级富豪的财富大多源于投资收益,而非像大多数美国人那样来自工资和薪金。与此同时,美国国税局审计部门的裁员以及该机构高层的动荡意味着避税可能会变得更加容易。
换言之,“百万富翁税”的重担可能更多地压在银行家、医生、律师、职业运动员和普通高管身上,而非马斯克、贝佐斯、巴菲特和马克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)这类富豪。事实上,借助合法的避税手段,后者几乎能够实现零缴税。
作为参考,根据ProPublica在2021年获取并分析的纳税申报单显示,尽管亚马逊(Amazon)创始人贝佐斯身为亿万富翁,但在2007年至2011年期间,他并未缴纳一分钱的联邦所得税。根据彭博亿万富翁指数,贝佐斯目前位列全球富豪榜第二位,净资产达1950亿美元。
特斯拉(Tesla)首席执行官埃隆·马斯克以3040亿美元的净资产位居全球富豪榜首,而这一成就他在2018年便已达成。不过,ProPublica发现,在过去数年间,美国最富有的25位富豪中,无人能及沃伦·巴菲特的避税程度。
“奥马哈先知”(指沃伦·巴菲特)本人一直都在强调这一议题,他曾直言,自己的税率比秘书黛比·博萨内克(Debbie Bosanek)还要低。
博萨内克在某种程度上无意间成为了美国税收不平等现象的代表人物。2011年,时任总统巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)提出了所谓的“巴菲特规则”,旨在通过取消部分税收优惠和补贴,将百万富翁的有效税率提高到30%。但该提案最终因共和党人发动程序性阻挠议事而未能通过。
“百万富翁税”无法扭转局面
六个州——加利福尼亚州、康涅狄格州、缅因州、马萨诸塞州、新泽西州和纽约州(以及华盛顿特区)——已推行“百万富翁税”,以个人收入作为计税基准。在联邦层面,年收入不低于626350美元的个人适用37%的最高税率。据报道,国会共和党人曾考虑将收入超过37万美元人群的税率上调至40%。
然而,就目前而言,该提案似乎不会对合格股息以及长期资本利得产生影响,目前这两类收益均适用23.8%的最高税率。私募股权领域的附带权益同样遵循此税率标准,而附带权益也是风险投资和对冲基金经理薪酬的主要组成部分。特朗普曾表示希望堵住这一漏洞,据美国国会预算办公室(Congressional Budget Office)估算,到2034年,此举将使联邦赤字减少130亿美元。
然而,亦有观点认为超级富豪群体已承受着相对较高的税负水平。保守派智库美国税收基金会(American Tax Foundation)指出,美国财政部于2024年开展的一项研究显示,若将国内外企业所得税、遗产税以及州和地方税等各项税负综合考量,美国最富裕阶层所面临的有效税率高达60%。
美国税收基金会名誉会长斯科特·霍奇(Scott Hodge)写道:“财政部开展此项研究,无疑是为了表明,相对于他们的总财富而言,美国富人缴纳的所得税较少。但大多数政府,无论是外国政府还是本国政府,均针对个人及企业收入征税,而非财富本身。”
单纯推行“百万富翁税”或许难以扭转这一局面。(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
美国最负盛名的投资家以及华尔街最具权势银行的掌舵人向美国政府传递出清晰信号:提高富人税负。伯克希尔-哈撒韦公司首席执行官沃伦·巴菲特和摩根大通首席执行官杰米·戴蒙,均主张提高富人税负,以实现公平,并解决不断膨胀的联邦赤字问题。
国会共和党阵营历来对提高富人税负持反对立场,但据报道,他们正在考虑征收所谓的“百万富翁税”,这凸显唐纳德·特朗普总统所倡导的民粹主义理念对该党政策导向的影响。尽管该提案遭到了党内诸多重量级人物的反对,但有人提出以征收此税为手段,为小费、加班费及社保福利的税收减免措施提供资金支持,并助力延长2017年《减税和就业法案》中相关条款的适用期限。
不过,撇开这一争论不谈,提高高收入者所得税恐怕难以让像巴菲特、戴蒙、埃隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)和杰夫·贝佐斯(Jeff Bezos)这样的亿万富翁向政府缴纳更多的税款。究其原因,超级富豪的财富大多源于投资收益,而非像大多数美国人那样来自工资和薪金。与此同时,美国国税局审计部门的裁员以及该机构高层的动荡意味着避税可能会变得更加容易。
换言之,“百万富翁税”的重担可能更多地压在银行家、医生、律师、职业运动员和普通高管身上,而非马斯克、贝佐斯、巴菲特和马克·扎克伯格(Mark Zuckerberg)这类富豪。事实上,借助合法的避税手段,后者几乎能够实现零缴税。
作为参考,根据ProPublica在2021年获取并分析的纳税申报单显示,尽管亚马逊(Amazon)创始人贝佐斯身为亿万富翁,但在2007年至2011年期间,他并未缴纳一分钱的联邦所得税。根据彭博亿万富翁指数,贝佐斯目前位列全球富豪榜第二位,净资产达1950亿美元。
特斯拉(Tesla)首席执行官埃隆·马斯克以3040亿美元的净资产位居全球富豪榜首,而这一成就他在2018年便已达成。不过,ProPublica发现,在过去数年间,美国最富有的25位富豪中,无人能及沃伦·巴菲特的避税程度。
“奥马哈先知”(指沃伦·巴菲特)本人一直都在强调这一议题,他曾直言,自己的税率比秘书黛比·博萨内克(Debbie Bosanek)还要低。
博萨内克在某种程度上无意间成为了美国税收不平等现象的代表人物。2011年,时任总统巴拉克·奥巴马(Barack Obama)提出了所谓的“巴菲特规则”,旨在通过取消部分税收优惠和补贴,将百万富翁的有效税率提高到30%。但该提案最终因共和党人发动程序性阻挠议事而未能通过。
“百万富翁税”无法扭转局面
六个州——加利福尼亚州、康涅狄格州、缅因州、马萨诸塞州、新泽西州和纽约州(以及华盛顿特区)——已推行“百万富翁税”,以个人收入作为计税基准。在联邦层面,年收入不低于626350美元的个人适用37%的最高税率。据报道,国会共和党人曾考虑将收入超过37万美元人群的税率上调至40%。
然而,就目前而言,该提案似乎不会对合格股息以及长期资本利得产生影响,目前这两类收益均适用23.8%的最高税率。私募股权领域的附带权益同样遵循此税率标准,而附带权益也是风险投资和对冲基金经理薪酬的主要组成部分。特朗普曾表示希望堵住这一漏洞,据美国国会预算办公室(Congressional Budget Office)估算,到2034年,此举将使联邦赤字减少130亿美元。
然而,亦有观点认为超级富豪群体已承受着相对较高的税负水平。保守派智库美国税收基金会(American Tax Foundation)指出,美国财政部于2024年开展的一项研究显示,若将国内外企业所得税、遗产税以及州和地方税等各项税负综合考量,美国最富裕阶层所面临的有效税率高达60%。
美国税收基金会名誉会长斯科特·霍奇(Scott Hodge)写道:“财政部开展此项研究,无疑是为了表明,相对于他们的总财富而言,美国富人缴纳的所得税较少。但大多数政府,无论是外国政府还是本国政府,均针对个人及企业收入征税,而非财富本身。”
单纯推行“百万富翁税”或许难以扭转这一局面。(财富中文网)
译者:中慧言-王芳
America’s most celebrated investor and the head of Wall Street’s most powerful bank have had a clear message for Washington: Tax us more. Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon, the CEOs of Berkshire Hathaway and JP Morgan Chase, respectively, have both advocated for raising taxes on the rich as a matter of fairness—and to address a burgeoning federal deficit.
Congressional Republicans, traditionally opposed to hiking taxes on the wealthy, are reportedly mulling a so-called millionaires tax, underlining how President Donald Trump’s populist appeal has transformed the party. While the proposal faces opposition from plenty of prominent Republicans, the move has been floated to help pay for tax breaks on tips, overtime pay, and Social Security benefits, as well as the extension of provisions in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
That argument aside, however, increasing income taxes on high earners is unlikely to make billionaires like Buffett, Dimon, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos pay much more to the government. That’s because ultrawealthy individuals overwhelmingly accumulate most of their wealth from investment income, rather than from wages and salaries like most Americans. Meanwhile, job cuts in the audit division of the Internal Revenue Service and upheaval at the top of the agency mean tax avoidance could get even easier.
In other words, a “millionaires’ tax” would likely fall more heavily on bankers, doctors, lawyers, professional athletes, and run-of-the-mill executives rather than the likes of Musk, Bezos, Buffett, and Mark Zuckerberg. In fact, legal strategies can allow them to pay little to nothing at all.
For reference, Bezos, the founder of Amazon, did not pay a cent in federal income tax from 2007 and 2011 despite being a multibillionaire, according to an analysis of his tax returns obtained by ProPublica in 2021. Bezos is now the world’s second-richest person with a net worth of $195 billion, per the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who leads the way with a $304 billion net worth, managed the same feat in 2018. ProPublica found none of the country’s 25 wealthiest people had avoided as much tax over several years as Buffett, however.
The Oracle of Omaha has consistently raised this issue himself, famously pointing out he was subject to a lower tax rate than his secretary, Debbie Bosanek.
Bosanek somewhat inadvertently became the face of tax inequality in the U.S., and, in 2011, President Barack Obama proposed the so-called Buffett rule, which aimed to increase the effective tax rate on millionaires to 30% by eliminating certain tax breaks and subsidies. A bill was eventually blocked by a Republican filibuster.
A ‘millionaires’ tax’ wouldn’t cut it
Six states—California, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York (along with Washington, D.C.)—have adopted “millionaire taxes,” all of which focus on income. At the federal level, a top rate of 37% applies to individuals making at least $626,350. Congressional Republicans have reportedly considered increasing that rate to 40% for those making about $370,000 more.
For now, however, it appears the proposal would not affect qualified dividends and long-term capital gains, which are currently hit with a top rate of 23.8%. Private equity also benefits from being taxed at that rate for carried interest, which also accounts for the bulk of compensation for venture capital and hedge-fund managers. Trump has indicated he wants to close the loophole, which the Congressional Budget Office estimates would cut the federal deficit by $13 billion through 2034.
Some argue the ultrawealthy are already subject to high tax rates, however. The American Tax Foundation, a conservative-leaning think tank, says a 2024 study from the Treasury Department shows the country’s wealthiest individuals are hit with effective tax rates as high as 60% when accounting for corporate income and estate taxes at home and abroad, as well as state and local taxes.
“The Treasury study was no doubt commissioned to demonstrate that wealthy Americans pay a relatively small amount of income taxes compared to their total wealth,” Tax Foundation president emeritus Scott Hodge wrote. “But most governments, foreign and domestic, tax people and businesses on their income and not their wealth.”
”A simple “millionaires’ tax” likely wouldn’t change that.