自大流行以来，英国亿万富翁人数增加了20%，征收财富税呼声强烈
正文翻译
(The Equality Trust said the number of UK billionaires had increased from 147 in 2020 to 177 this year.)
（平等信托基金会表示，英国亿万富翁的数量已从2020年的147人增加到今年的177人。）
新闻：
Call for wealth tax as UK billionaire numbers up by 20% since pandemic
-‘Sudden explosion of billionaire wealth’ at the expense of the rest of society is ‘grossly unjust’, says Equality Trust
自大流行以来，英国亿万富翁人数增加了20%，征收财富税呼声强烈
——平等信托称，以牺牲社会其他人为代价的“亿万富翁财富的突然爆炸”是“非常不公平的”
-‘Sudden explosion of billionaire wealth’ at the expense of the rest of society is ‘grossly unjust’, says Equality Trust
自大流行以来，英国亿万富翁人数增加了20%，征收财富税呼声强烈
——平等信托称，以牺牲社会其他人为代价的“亿万富翁财富的突然爆炸”是“非常不公平的”
(The Equality Trust said the number of UK billionaires had increased from 147 in 2020 to 177 this year.)
（平等信托基金会表示，英国亿万富翁的数量已从2020年的147人增加到今年的177人。）
新闻：
The number of UK billionaires has increased by a fifth since the onset of the Covid pandemic, according to a report calling for a progressive wealth tax to tackle rising inequality amid the cost of living crisis.
一份报告称，自新冠肺炎疫情爆发以来，英国亿万富翁的数量增加了五分之一。该报告呼吁征收累进财富税，以应对生活成本危机带来的日益加剧的不平等。
一份报告称，自新冠肺炎疫情爆发以来，英国亿万富翁的数量增加了五分之一。该报告呼吁征收累进财富税，以应对生活成本危机带来的日益加剧的不平等。
The Equality Trust charity said interventions by governments and central banks during the pandemic allowed for an “explosion of billionaire wealth” in Britain at the expense of the rest of society, after fuelling a boom in property values and on the stock market.
慈善机构平等信托表示，疫情期间政府和央行的干预导致了英国“亿万富翁财富的爆炸式增长”，这是以牺牲社会其他人为代价的，此前这些干预推动了房地产价值和股市的飙升。
慈善机构平等信托表示，疫情期间政府和央行的干预导致了英国“亿万富翁财富的爆炸式增长”，这是以牺牲社会其他人为代价的，此前这些干预推动了房地产价值和股市的飙升。
At the onset of the global health emergency three years ago, the Bank of England and other big central banks around the world crashed interest rates to zero and pumped billions of pounds into financial markets through their quantitative easing bond-buying programmes. Aimed at softening the edges of the worst recession in three centuries by supporting businesses, households and governments with lower borrowing costs, the report found the policies also helped inflate asset prices, helping to line the pockets of wealthy investors.
三年前全球突发卫生事件爆发时，英国央行和全球其他大型央行将利率降至零，并通过量化宽松债券购买计划向金融市场注入了数十亿英镑。报告发现，这些政策旨在通过降低借贷成本支持企业、家庭和政府，从而缓解这场三个世纪以来最严重衰退的边缘，但同时也推高了资产价格，帮助富裕投资者中饱了腰包。
三年前全球突发卫生事件爆发时，英国央行和全球其他大型央行将利率降至零，并通过量化宽松债券购买计划向金融市场注入了数十亿英镑。报告发现，这些政策旨在通过降低借贷成本支持企业、家庭和政府，从而缓解这场三个世纪以来最严重衰退的边缘，但同时也推高了资产价格，帮助富裕投资者中饱了腰包。
The Equality Trust said this had contributed to the number of UK billionaires increasing from 147 in 2020 to 177 this year, with the median billionaire now holding about £2bn.
平等信托表示，这导致英国亿万富翁的数量从2020年的147人增加到今年的177人，亿万富翁的资产中位数目前约为20亿英镑。
平等信托表示，这导致英国亿万富翁的数量从2020年的147人增加到今年的177人，亿万富翁的资产中位数目前约为20亿英镑。
“This sudden explosion in extreme wealth was in large part due to measures aimed at lessening the impact of Covid-19 on the economy, as central banks pumped trillions of dollars into financial markets, leading to a stock market boom which effectively lined the pockets of shareholders,” Jo Wittams, co-executive director of the Equality Trust, said in a report published on Monday.
平等信托联合执行董事乔·威塔姆斯在周一发布的一份报告中表示：“这种极端财富的突然爆炸式增长，在很大程度上是由于央行为减轻新冠肺炎对经济影响而采取的措施，这些措施向金融市场注入了数万亿美元，导致股市繁荣，实际上让股东的口袋里装满了钱。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
平等信托联合执行董事乔·威塔姆斯在周一发布的一份报告中表示：“这种极端财富的突然爆炸式增长，在很大程度上是由于央行为减轻新冠肺炎对经济影响而采取的措施，这些措施向金融市场注入了数万亿美元，导致股市繁荣，实际上让股东的口袋里装满了钱。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
“While Covid-19 saw billionaire wealth rise to levels never seen before, the construction of the economic infrastructure that has enabled this mass accumulation stretches back over the last four decades.”
“虽然新冠肺炎让亿万富翁的财富上升到了前所未有的水平，但经济基础设施的建设可以追溯到过去40年。”
“虽然新冠肺炎让亿万富翁的财富上升到了前所未有的水平，但经济基础设施的建设可以追溯到过去40年。”
The report found that the number of billionaires in the UK had risen more than tenfold from 15 in 1990, when the Sunday Times first published its Rich List, after taking into account inflation over that time period.
报告发现，1990年《星期日泰晤士报》首次发布富豪榜时，英国亿万富翁的数量为15人，在考虑了那段时期的通货膨胀后，如今增加了10倍以上。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
报告发现，1990年《星期日泰晤士报》首次发布富豪榜时，英国亿万富翁的数量为15人，在考虑了那段时期的通货膨胀后，如今增加了10倍以上。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Using inflation-adjusted wealth data from archive copies of the Rich List, it said the combined wealth of Britain’s billionaires had risen from £53.9bn in 1990 to more than £653bn in 2022. “This represents an increase in billionaire wealth of over 1,000% over the past 32 years,” the report said.
报告称，英国亿万富翁的财富总额已从1990年的539亿英镑增至2022年的逾6530亿英镑。报告称：“在过去32年里，亿万富翁的财富增长了1000%以上。”
报告称，英国亿万富翁的财富总额已从1990年的539亿英镑增至2022年的逾6530亿英镑。报告称：“在过去32年里，亿万富翁的财富增长了1000%以上。”
“That we have allowed the very richest few to accrue such a staggering amount of the nation’s wealth since 1990 is a national disgrace,” Wittams said. “The UK’s record on wealth inequality is appalling, grossly unjust, and presents a real threat to our economy and to our society.
维塔姆斯说：“自1990年以来，我们让最富有的少数人积累了如此惊人的国家财富，这是国家的耻辱。英国在财富不平等方面的记录令人震惊，非常不公平，对我们的经济和社会构成了真正的威胁。
维塔姆斯说：“自1990年以来，我们让最富有的少数人积累了如此惊人的国家财富，这是国家的耻辱。英国在财富不平等方面的记录令人震惊，非常不公平，对我们的经济和社会构成了真正的威胁。
“Every year we are invited to celebrate the very richest individuals and families in the UK, while food bank usage continues to increase, 3.9 million children are living in poverty and 6.7m households struggle to heat their homes. That these are two sides of the same coin is very rarely mentioned.”
“每年我们都被邀请为英国最富有的个人和家庭庆祝，而食品银行的使用量却持续增加，390万儿童生活贫困，670万家庭为家庭供暖而苦苦挣扎。这是一枚硬币的两面，但很少有人提到。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
“每年我们都被邀请为英国最富有的个人和家庭庆祝，而食品银行的使用量却持续增加，390万儿童生活贫困，670万家庭为家庭供暖而苦苦挣扎。这是一枚硬币的两面，但很少有人提到。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Wittams said inequality did not have to be inevitable. “The right policies can have a positive impact,” she said. “We call on the government to tax wealth in line with incomes, reform the financial sector and end the UK’s role in tax avoidance. Two-thirds of the British public agree that ordinary working people do not get their fair share of the nation’s wealth and it is time the government took action.”
威塔姆斯说，不平等并非不可避免。“正确的政策可以产生积极的影响，”她说。“我们呼吁政府根据收入对财富征税，改革金融部门，结束英国在避税方面的角色。三分之二的英国公众认为，普通劳动人民没有得到国家财富的公平份额，政府是时候采取行动了。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
威塔姆斯说，不平等并非不可避免。“正确的政策可以产生积极的影响，”她说。“我们呼吁政府根据收入对财富征税，改革金融部门，结束英国在避税方面的角色。三分之二的英国公众认为，普通劳动人民没有得到国家财富的公平份额，政府是时候采取行动了。”
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Tax equality campaigners claim the government could raise up to £37bn to help pay for public services if it introduced a string of wealth taxes.
税收平等活动人士声称，如果政府推出一系列财富税，它可以筹集至多370亿英镑来帮助支付公共服务。
税收平等活动人士声称，如果政府推出一系列财富税，它可以筹集至多370亿英镑来帮助支付公共服务。
Tax Justice UK has called on the government to introduce five tax reforms targeting the very wealthy, who the campaign group said had done “really well financially” during the coronavirus crisis and national lockdowns, rather than seek to save money with further cuts to public services.
英国税收正义呼吁政府推出针对非常富有人群的五项税收改革，而不是寻求通过进一步削减公共服务来节省资金。该活动组织称，在新冠危机和全国封锁期间，这些人“财务上非常好”。
英国税收正义呼吁政府推出针对非常富有人群的五项税收改革，而不是寻求通过进一步削减公共服务来节省资金。该活动组织称，在新冠危机和全国封锁期间，这些人“财务上非常好”。
“Tax is about political choices. At a time when most people are being hit hard by the cost of living crisis it would be wrong to cut public services further,” said Tom Peters, Tax Justice UK’s head of advocacy. “The wealthy have done really well financially in the last few years. The chancellor should protect public spending by taxing wealth properly.”
“税收是一种政治选择。在大多数人都受到生活成本危机的沉重打击的时候，进一步削减公共服务是错误的，”英国税收正义的倡导负责人汤姆·彼得斯表示。“过去几年，富人在财务上非常好。财政大臣应该通过对财富适当征税来保护公共支出。”
“税收是一种政治选择。在大多数人都受到生活成本危机的沉重打击的时候，进一步削减公共服务是错误的，”英国税收正义的倡导负责人汤姆·彼得斯表示。“过去几年，富人在财务上非常好。财政大臣应该通过对财富适当征税来保护公共支出。”
The campaign group, which is calling for a “fairer tax system that actively redistributes wealth to tackle inequality”, suggests five wealth tax reforms.
该运动组织呼吁建立“更公平的税收体系，积极重新分配财富以解决不平等问题”，并提出了五项财富税改革。
该运动组织呼吁建立“更公平的税收体系，积极重新分配财富以解决不平等问题”，并提出了五项财富税改革。
The measures include equalising capital gains tax with income tax, scrapping the non-dom regime and introducing a 1% tax on super-rich people’s assets over £10m – which, they claim, could raise £10bn on its own.
这些措施包括将资本利得税与所得税等同起来，废除非领地制度，并对超级富豪1000万英镑以上的资产征收1%的税——他们声称，这一举措本身就可以筹集100亿英镑。
这些措施包括将资本利得税与所得税等同起来，废除非领地制度，并对超级富豪1000万英镑以上的资产征收1%的税——他们声称，这一举措本身就可以筹集100亿英镑。
评论翻译
borezGeordie in London
We need a massive shake up of the tax system towards the rich and super rich no doubt, it's absolutely obvious to most people that inequality is running out of control. Thing is though, the people with the money have so much political ( both inside and out ) and media influence that it's just not going to happen, or it'll be happen on such as superficial level that it'll make little difference to the growing issues.
Pretty much sleight of hand economics for want of a better phrase.
We need a government who can remove the influence, change and enforce the rules and actually do the job needed. That's what really needs to happen.
Tories need outing first though.
毫无疑问，我们需要对富人和超级富豪的税收制度进行大规模改革，对大多数人来说，不平等正在失去控制是绝对明显的。但问题是，有钱的人有这么多的政治（内外）和媒体影响力，所以这是不会发生的，或者它会发生在这样一个肤浅的层面上，它对日益增长的问题没有什么影响。
这就是经济学的花招，找不到更好的说法了。
我们需要一个能够消除影响、改变和执行规则并实际完成所需工作的政府。这才是真正需要发生的。
不过首先需要保守党下台。
We need a massive shake up of the tax system towards the rich and super rich no doubt, it's absolutely obvious to most people that inequality is running out of control. Thing is though, the people with the money have so much political ( both inside and out ) and media influence that it's just not going to happen, or it'll be happen on such as superficial level that it'll make little difference to the growing issues.
Pretty much sleight of hand economics for want of a better phrase.
We need a government who can remove the influence, change and enforce the rules and actually do the job needed. That's what really needs to happen.
Tories need outing first though.
毫无疑问，我们需要对富人和超级富豪的税收制度进行大规模改革，对大多数人来说，不平等正在失去控制是绝对明显的。但问题是，有钱的人有这么多的政治（内外）和媒体影响力，所以这是不会发生的，或者它会发生在这样一个肤浅的层面上，它对日益增长的问题没有什么影响。
这就是经济学的花招，找不到更好的说法了。
我们需要一个能够消除影响、改变和执行规则并实际完成所需工作的政府。这才是真正需要发生的。
不过首先需要保守党下台。
trust-me-I-am-chimp
It’s not individuals that are the problem. It’s businesses. Businesses have so many ways to avoid paying tax it’s mind boggling we let it happen. Imagine if you and I could just not pay tax on the expenses that are essential for us to exist. I.e. food, transport, accommodation, utilities. There’d almost be nothing left to pay taxes on, which is how businesses pay tax.
That’s not going to change any time soon, but at the very least the focus should be on how to squeeze businesses out of loopholes and pay tax fairly rather than on individuals.
问题不在于个人。是企业。企业有这么多避税的方法，我们让这种情况发生真是令人难以置信。想象一下，如果你和我可以不为我们生存所必需的费用纳税。即食物、交通、住宿、公用事业。那几乎没有什么东西可以纳税了，这就是企业纳税的方式。
这种情况短期内不会改变，但至少应该把重点放在如何把企业挤出漏洞公平纳税上，而不是向个人征税。
It’s not individuals that are the problem. It’s businesses. Businesses have so many ways to avoid paying tax it’s mind boggling we let it happen. Imagine if you and I could just not pay tax on the expenses that are essential for us to exist. I.e. food, transport, accommodation, utilities. There’d almost be nothing left to pay taxes on, which is how businesses pay tax.
That’s not going to change any time soon, but at the very least the focus should be on how to squeeze businesses out of loopholes and pay tax fairly rather than on individuals.
问题不在于个人。是企业。企业有这么多避税的方法，我们让这种情况发生真是令人难以置信。想象一下，如果你和我可以不为我们生存所必需的费用纳税。即食物、交通、住宿、公用事业。那几乎没有什么东西可以纳税了，这就是企业纳税的方式。
这种情况短期内不会改变，但至少应该把重点放在如何把企业挤出漏洞公平纳税上，而不是向个人征税。
_Arch_Stanton
It not just about tax they could pay. It's about tax they should pay.
Estimates are that £80bn a year of taxes are avoided in the UK.
Imagine an extra £80bn a year to spend on the NHS, schools, hospitals and services. It'd transform Britain.
There's one party, for absolute sure, that will never address this problem and that's the one in government now.
这不仅仅是他们能付的税。而是他们本来就应该交的税。
据估计，英国每年避税800亿英镑。
想象一下，每年在国家医疗体系、学校、医院和其他服务上多花800亿英镑。这将改变英国。
但有一个政党，绝对肯定，永远不会解决这个问题，那就是现在的政府。
It not just about tax they could pay. It's about tax they should pay.
Estimates are that £80bn a year of taxes are avoided in the UK.
Imagine an extra £80bn a year to spend on the NHS, schools, hospitals and services. It'd transform Britain.
There's one party, for absolute sure, that will never address this problem and that's the one in government now.
这不仅仅是他们能付的税。而是他们本来就应该交的税。
据估计，英国每年避税800亿英镑。
想象一下，每年在国家医疗体系、学校、医院和其他服务上多花800亿英镑。这将改变英国。
但有一个政党，绝对肯定，永远不会解决这个问题，那就是现在的政府。
borg88Buckinghamshire
According to the article, there are 177 billionaires in the UK. So to raise £80bn they would need to be paying an average of £500m each. Every year.
Nobody is going to pay half a billion pounds in tax for the pleasure of living in the UK. It isn't going to happen.
They will either find other loopholes, or leave.
You might be of the opinion that we would be better off without them. Maybe. But don't try to pretend that we will ever see £80bn in taxes from them.
根据这篇文章，英国有177位亿万富翁。因此，要筹集800亿英镑，它们平均每人需要支付5亿英镑。每年。
没有人会为了在英国生活的乐趣而支付5亿英镑的税。这是不会发生的。
他们要么找到其他漏洞，要么离开这里。
你可能会认为没有他们我们会过得更好。也许吧。但不要试图假装我们将从他们那里看到800亿英镑的税收。
According to the article, there are 177 billionaires in the UK. So to raise £80bn they would need to be paying an average of £500m each. Every year.
Nobody is going to pay half a billion pounds in tax for the pleasure of living in the UK. It isn't going to happen.
They will either find other loopholes, or leave.
You might be of the opinion that we would be better off without them. Maybe. But don't try to pretend that we will ever see £80bn in taxes from them.
根据这篇文章，英国有177位亿万富翁。因此，要筹集800亿英镑，它们平均每人需要支付5亿英镑。每年。
没有人会为了在英国生活的乐趣而支付5亿英镑的税。这是不会发生的。
他们要么找到其他漏洞，要么离开这里。
你可能会认为没有他们我们会过得更好。也许吧。但不要试图假装我们将从他们那里看到800亿英镑的税收。
_Arch_Stanton
You're assuming that the £80bn comes only from the 177 billionaires.
It doesn't.
For example, HMRC let Vodafone off £6bn in tax not so many years ago. How many other companies and individuals have cut cosy little deals with this government?
There's plenty of opportunity to recover a sizeable proportion of the £80bn but trying to make excuses for those not doing so is a sure way of it not happening.
你在假设这800亿英镑只来自177位亿万富翁。
不是这样的。
例如，英国税务海关总署几年前让沃达丰减免了60亿英镑的税款。还有多少公司和个人与英国政府达成了友好的小协议？
英国有很多机会收回800亿英镑中的相当大一部分，但试图为那些不这么做的人找借口，这才是这肯定不会发生的原因。
You're assuming that the £80bn comes only from the 177 billionaires.
It doesn't.
For example, HMRC let Vodafone off £6bn in tax not so many years ago. How many other companies and individuals have cut cosy little deals with this government?
There's plenty of opportunity to recover a sizeable proportion of the £80bn but trying to make excuses for those not doing so is a sure way of it not happening.
你在假设这800亿英镑只来自177位亿万富翁。
不是这样的。
例如，英国税务海关总署几年前让沃达丰减免了60亿英镑的税款。还有多少公司和个人与英国政府达成了友好的小协议？
英国有很多机会收回800亿英镑中的相当大一部分，但试图为那些不这么做的人找借口，这才是这肯定不会发生的原因。
RoktopX
Taxation for the ultra wealthy across the planet needs to somehow be based of the increase of their "worth" not income as the don't have traditional "incomes" that trigger taxation.
Net worth specifically but which is difficult for many reasons, chiefly as the wealthy have options to take loans out against assets and you don't pay taxes on debt.
The ultra wealthy pay donations or just plain old bribes to law makers to ensure the system and rules that make them wealthy stay in place to keep them wealthy.
The system is rigged.
However I am no expert on tax law, just an interested party and my explanation is very rough and probably flawed.
Overall I don't know how to go from where we are to something else with out horrible harmful revolutions and the likely societal collapse that will follow.
And most people who have comfortable lives don't want to deal with that.
对全球超级富豪的征税需要以某种方式基于他们“价值”的增加，而不是收入，因为他们没有传统的“收入”来征税。
具体来说是净资产，但这是很困难的，原因有很多，主要是因为富人可以选择用资产抵押贷款，而且你不用为债务纳税。
超级富豪向立法者支付捐款或只是简单的贿赂，以确保使他们富有的制度和规则保持存在，让他们保持富有。
体制被操纵了。
然而，我不是税法专家，只是一个利益相关者，我的解释非常粗略，可能有缺陷。
总的来说，我不知道如何从我们现在的处境到另一个处境，而不用发生可怕的有害革命和随之而来的可能的社会崩溃。
大多数过着舒适生活的人都不想面对这种情况。
Taxation for the ultra wealthy across the planet needs to somehow be based of the increase of their "worth" not income as the don't have traditional "incomes" that trigger taxation.
Net worth specifically but which is difficult for many reasons, chiefly as the wealthy have options to take loans out against assets and you don't pay taxes on debt.
The ultra wealthy pay donations or just plain old bribes to law makers to ensure the system and rules that make them wealthy stay in place to keep them wealthy.
The system is rigged.
However I am no expert on tax law, just an interested party and my explanation is very rough and probably flawed.
Overall I don't know how to go from where we are to something else with out horrible harmful revolutions and the likely societal collapse that will follow.
And most people who have comfortable lives don't want to deal with that.
对全球超级富豪的征税需要以某种方式基于他们“价值”的增加，而不是收入，因为他们没有传统的“收入”来征税。
具体来说是净资产，但这是很困难的，原因有很多，主要是因为富人可以选择用资产抵押贷款，而且你不用为债务纳税。
超级富豪向立法者支付捐款或只是简单的贿赂，以确保使他们富有的制度和规则保持存在，让他们保持富有。
体制被操纵了。
然而，我不是税法专家，只是一个利益相关者，我的解释非常粗略，可能有缺陷。
总的来说，我不知道如何从我们现在的处境到另一个处境，而不用发生可怕的有害革命和随之而来的可能的社会崩溃。
大多数过着舒适生活的人都不想面对这种情况。
paulc19802
I certainly don't see an issue with aligning capital gains to your tax bracket. If you're happy living here paying that level of tax on income then also paying it on capital gains shouldn't really be a deal breaker. Or at least add a third tier so it's 10%, 20% 30%.
The problem though is when you start talking about taxing assets. Assets are not money. They are paid with by money that should have already been taxed or inherited and thus should have already been taxed.
There is also a school of thought to tax unrealised capital gains on assets. This is very silly because you have to do it fairly. If the economy or parts of it have a very bad time you can end up with significant unrealised capital losses, especially in the housing market where capital gains tax is already 28%.
If you're going to tax people on unrealised capital gains you also have to then rebate them for unrealised capital losses. This would be an absolute nightmare if we ever have another 2008 or something similar.
我当然不认为资本利得与你的纳税等级挂钩有什么问题。如果你在这里生活得很开心，缴纳那么高的所得税，那么资本利得税也不应该成为交易的破坏者。或者至少增加第三级，所以是10%，20%，30%。
但问题是，当你开始谈论对资产征税时。资产不是货币。他们是用本应已经征税或继承的钱支付的，因此本应已经征税。
还有一种观点对资产的未实现资本利得征税。这是非常愚蠢的，因为你必须公平地执行。如果经济或经济的一部分经历了非常糟糕的时期，你可能会以巨大的未实现资本损失而告终，特别是在资本利得税已经达到28%的房地产市场。
如果你打算对人们的未实现资本利得征税，那么你还必须对他们的未实现资本损失进行退税。如果我们再次经历2008年或类似的情况，那绝对是一场噩梦。
I certainly don't see an issue with aligning capital gains to your tax bracket. If you're happy living here paying that level of tax on income then also paying it on capital gains shouldn't really be a deal breaker. Or at least add a third tier so it's 10%, 20% 30%.
The problem though is when you start talking about taxing assets. Assets are not money. They are paid with by money that should have already been taxed or inherited and thus should have already been taxed.
There is also a school of thought to tax unrealised capital gains on assets. This is very silly because you have to do it fairly. If the economy or parts of it have a very bad time you can end up with significant unrealised capital losses, especially in the housing market where capital gains tax is already 28%.
If you're going to tax people on unrealised capital gains you also have to then rebate them for unrealised capital losses. This would be an absolute nightmare if we ever have another 2008 or something similar.
我当然不认为资本利得与你的纳税等级挂钩有什么问题。如果你在这里生活得很开心，缴纳那么高的所得税，那么资本利得税也不应该成为交易的破坏者。或者至少增加第三级，所以是10%，20%，30%。
但问题是，当你开始谈论对资产征税时。资产不是货币。他们是用本应已经征税或继承的钱支付的，因此本应已经征税。
还有一种观点对资产的未实现资本利得征税。这是非常愚蠢的，因为你必须公平地执行。如果经济或经济的一部分经历了非常糟糕的时期，你可能会以巨大的未实现资本损失而告终，特别是在资本利得税已经达到28%的房地产市场。
如果你打算对人们的未实现资本利得征税，那么你还必须对他们的未实现资本损失进行退税。如果我们再次经历2008年或类似的情况，那绝对是一场噩梦。
chef_26 310
I do think it’s a reasonable moment to assign a windfall for wealth valuations above a value and tax 20% of it for social good.
The problem is getting hold of that number and enforcing it because huge amounts of these values are not personal assets, they are business, trust and offshore assets. To actually make this work a windfall tax on ultimate beneficiaries would need to made legal
我确实认为，现在是一个合理的，将一笔意外之财分配给估值高于价值的财富，并对其中的20%征税用于社会公益的时机。
问题是如何掌握这个数字并加以执行，因为这些价值中的很大一部分不是个人资产，而是企业、信托和离岸资产。要真正实现这一目标，对最终受益人征收暴利税需要合法化
I do think it’s a reasonable moment to assign a windfall for wealth valuations above a value and tax 20% of it for social good.
The problem is getting hold of that number and enforcing it because huge amounts of these values are not personal assets, they are business, trust and offshore assets. To actually make this work a windfall tax on ultimate beneficiaries would need to made legal
我确实认为，现在是一个合理的，将一笔意外之财分配给估值高于价值的财富，并对其中的20%征税用于社会公益的时机。
问题是如何掌握这个数字并加以执行，因为这些价值中的很大一部分不是个人资产，而是企业、信托和离岸资产。要真正实现这一目标，对最终受益人征收暴利税需要合法化
SwallowMyLiquid
I’d push for a system which allows for zero excess profits on utilities. For the good of almost everyone.
我会推动一种允许公用事业零超额利润的制度。这对几乎所有人都好。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
I’d push for a system which allows for zero excess profits on utilities. For the good of almost everyone.
我会推动一种允许公用事业零超额利润的制度。这对几乎所有人都好。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Blue_winged_yoshi
Taxing 20% of wealth above a certain level isn’t sustainable and would cause a run on assets which would collapse the value of pensions etc.
Tax 20% of someone who has a billion for example would require tax payments of £200m per year and the wealth would entirely deplete over a fairly short period (dependent on rate of growth). Fair enough their billionaires and billionaires are immoral, right? Well, yeah but billionaires are stupid and will just live in any of the 200 odd states recognised by the UN that tax significantly less.
So how much should a wealth tax charge? Heuristic is that you can sustainably withdraw 5% of assets a year without running them down because average annual gains should cover this. Taxing at this level has some chance of buy-in.
Basically wealth taxes are a great idea but need to be really carefully planned and marketed, because exceptionally wealthy people have choices over where they live, school their children, place their money etc. we have a lot going for as a country and people place great value on living here, key to to find out what level of wealth tax will be willing to be beared. Even a 3% wealth tax above a certain asset level would bring in significant new tax revenues.
对超过一定水平的财富征收20%的税是不可持续的，会导致资产挤兑，从而导致养老金价值崩溃等等。
例如，对一个拥有10亿美元的人征收20%的税，每年需要缴纳2亿英镑的税款，而且财富会在相当短的时间内完全耗尽（取决于增长率）。他们的亿万富翁都是不道德的，对吧？好吧，是的，但是亿万富翁是愚蠢的，他们只会住在联合国承认的200多个税收低得多的国家中的任何一个。
那么财富税应该征收多少呢？启发式是，你可以持续地每年提取5%的资产而不消耗它们，因为平均年收益应该覆盖这些数额。在这个水平征税有一定的机会被接受。
基本上财富税是一个好主意，但需要认真规划和营销，因为特别富有的人可以选择他们住在哪里，孩子在哪里上学，把钱放在哪里等等。作为一个国家，我们有很多事情要做，人们非常重视在这里生活，关键是要找出他们愿意承担什么水平的财富税。即使对特定资产水平以上的人征收3%的财富税，也会带来可观的新税收收入。（译注：就是说税率不能定的太高，把富人吓跑了就得不偿失了。）
Taxing 20% of wealth above a certain level isn’t sustainable and would cause a run on assets which would collapse the value of pensions etc.
Tax 20% of someone who has a billion for example would require tax payments of £200m per year and the wealth would entirely deplete over a fairly short period (dependent on rate of growth). Fair enough their billionaires and billionaires are immoral, right? Well, yeah but billionaires are stupid and will just live in any of the 200 odd states recognised by the UN that tax significantly less.
So how much should a wealth tax charge? Heuristic is that you can sustainably withdraw 5% of assets a year without running them down because average annual gains should cover this. Taxing at this level has some chance of buy-in.
Basically wealth taxes are a great idea but need to be really carefully planned and marketed, because exceptionally wealthy people have choices over where they live, school their children, place their money etc. we have a lot going for as a country and people place great value on living here, key to to find out what level of wealth tax will be willing to be beared. Even a 3% wealth tax above a certain asset level would bring in significant new tax revenues.
对超过一定水平的财富征收20%的税是不可持续的，会导致资产挤兑，从而导致养老金价值崩溃等等。
例如，对一个拥有10亿美元的人征收20%的税，每年需要缴纳2亿英镑的税款，而且财富会在相当短的时间内完全耗尽（取决于增长率）。他们的亿万富翁都是不道德的，对吧？好吧，是的，但是亿万富翁是愚蠢的，他们只会住在联合国承认的200多个税收低得多的国家中的任何一个。
那么财富税应该征收多少呢？启发式是，你可以持续地每年提取5%的资产而不消耗它们，因为平均年收益应该覆盖这些数额。在这个水平征税有一定的机会被接受。
基本上财富税是一个好主意，但需要认真规划和营销，因为特别富有的人可以选择他们住在哪里，孩子在哪里上学，把钱放在哪里等等。作为一个国家，我们有很多事情要做，人们非常重视在这里生活，关键是要找出他们愿意承担什么水平的财富税。即使对特定资产水平以上的人征收3%的财富税，也会带来可观的新税收收入。（译注：就是说税率不能定的太高，把富人吓跑了就得不偿失了。）
Grantmitch1Liberal
The problem is that wealth taxes, depending on how they are constructed, tend to be incredibly difficult to administer and tend not to raise as much, over the long term, as you'd expect or hope. Among economists, this tends to be one of the biggest sticking points. Indeed, when asked, around 80 percent of surveyed economists made this exact point with regard to Warren's wealth tax proposal. Furthermore, there are questions as to whether a wealth tax is the best policy tool; this is not a given. Indeed those same surveyed economists believed that reforms to capital gains tax would be far more effective in achieving the same goals. Aligning capital gains tax to income tax would probably do a lot and wouldn't require the same extensive changes to capacity that is needed for a wealth tax.
问题是，财富税（取决于它们是如何征收的）往往难以管理，而且从长期来看，往往不会像你预期或希望的那么多。在经济学家看来，这往往是最大的症结之一。事实上，当被问及这个问题时，大约80%的受访经济学家对沃伦的财富税提议提出了同样的观点。此外，还有人质疑财富税是否是最好的政策工具；这不是必然的。事实上，这些接受调查的经济学家认为，资本利得税改革在实现同样目标方面要有效得多。将资本利得税与所得税结合起来可能会起到很大的作用，而且不需要像财富税那样对产能进行广泛的改变。
The problem is that wealth taxes, depending on how they are constructed, tend to be incredibly difficult to administer and tend not to raise as much, over the long term, as you'd expect or hope. Among economists, this tends to be one of the biggest sticking points. Indeed, when asked, around 80 percent of surveyed economists made this exact point with regard to Warren's wealth tax proposal. Furthermore, there are questions as to whether a wealth tax is the best policy tool; this is not a given. Indeed those same surveyed economists believed that reforms to capital gains tax would be far more effective in achieving the same goals. Aligning capital gains tax to income tax would probably do a lot and wouldn't require the same extensive changes to capacity that is needed for a wealth tax.
问题是，财富税（取决于它们是如何征收的）往往难以管理，而且从长期来看，往往不会像你预期或希望的那么多。在经济学家看来，这往往是最大的症结之一。事实上，当被问及这个问题时，大约80%的受访经济学家对沃伦的财富税提议提出了同样的观点。此外，还有人质疑财富税是否是最好的政策工具；这不是必然的。事实上，这些接受调查的经济学家认为，资本利得税改革在实现同样目标方面要有效得多。将资本利得税与所得税结合起来可能会起到很大的作用，而且不需要像财富税那样对产能进行广泛的改变。
FreestripeSurrey
This won't work as long as the City of London remains a tax haven. It'll just be another tax on the majority that the rich avoid.
And London won't stop being a tax haven since it's one of the few actual profitable areas of our economy.
只要伦敦金融城仍然是避税天堂，这种做法就不会奏效。这只不过是对大多数人征收的另一种富人逃避的税。
伦敦作为避税天堂的地位不会停止，因为它是我们经济中为数不多的真正有利可图的领域之一。
This won't work as long as the City of London remains a tax haven. It'll just be another tax on the majority that the rich avoid.
And London won't stop being a tax haven since it's one of the few actual profitable areas of our economy.
只要伦敦金融城仍然是避税天堂，这种做法就不会奏效。这只不过是对大多数人征收的另一种富人逃避的税。
伦敦作为避税天堂的地位不会停止，因为它是我们经济中为数不多的真正有利可图的领域之一。
sobrique
And London won't stop being a tax haven since it's one of the few actual profitable areas of our economy.
And this is really the elephant in the room. The UK has been in decline since the fall of the Empire. We've been propped up by some ... dubious industries, like Big Finance and Arms dealing.
We're not all that great on natural resources, or productivity generally. We've got some great trade options, but ... only if we don't keep sabotaging our relationships with trade partners.
But I don't think we can afford to lose the oligarch money from our economy, even if they don't pay much tax.
“伦敦作为避税天堂的地位不会停止，因为它是我们经济中为数不多的真正有利可图的领域之一”
这真的是房间里的大象。自大英帝国灭亡以来，英国一直在衰落。我们得到了一些…可疑的行业，比如大型金融和军火交易。
我们在自然资源或生产力方面并不是那么优秀。我们有一些很好的贸易选择，但是……除非我们不再破坏与贸易伙伴的关系。
但我认为我们承受不起失去寡头经济的钱，即使他们不缴纳多少税。
And London won't stop being a tax haven since it's one of the few actual profitable areas of our economy.
And this is really the elephant in the room. The UK has been in decline since the fall of the Empire. We've been propped up by some ... dubious industries, like Big Finance and Arms dealing.
We're not all that great on natural resources, or productivity generally. We've got some great trade options, but ... only if we don't keep sabotaging our relationships with trade partners.
But I don't think we can afford to lose the oligarch money from our economy, even if they don't pay much tax.
“伦敦作为避税天堂的地位不会停止，因为它是我们经济中为数不多的真正有利可图的领域之一”
这真的是房间里的大象。自大英帝国灭亡以来，英国一直在衰落。我们得到了一些…可疑的行业，比如大型金融和军火交易。
我们在自然资源或生产力方面并不是那么优秀。我们有一些很好的贸易选择，但是……除非我们不再破坏与贸易伙伴的关系。
但我认为我们承受不起失去寡头经济的钱，即使他们不缴纳多少税。
SyntheticSaiyer
It seems like the wealth gap is only getting wider and it's not sustainable to have such a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. A wealth tax could be a great way to redistribute some of that wealth and help fund important public services like healthcare and education. Plus, it's not just about income - wealth is also about assets and property, and a wealth tax would ensure that those who have accumulated a lot of wealth contribute their fair share.
看来贫富差距只会越来越大，财富如此集中在少数人手中是不可持续的。财富税可能是重新分配部分财富的好方法，并有助于为医疗和教育等重要的公共服务提供资金。此外，它不仅仅关乎收入——财富也关乎资产和财产，而财富税将确保那些积累了大量财富的人贡献他们公平的份额。
It seems like the wealth gap is only getting wider and it's not sustainable to have such a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few. A wealth tax could be a great way to redistribute some of that wealth and help fund important public services like healthcare and education. Plus, it's not just about income - wealth is also about assets and property, and a wealth tax would ensure that those who have accumulated a lot of wealth contribute their fair share.
看来贫富差距只会越来越大，财富如此集中在少数人手中是不可持续的。财富税可能是重新分配部分财富的好方法，并有助于为医疗和教育等重要的公共服务提供资金。此外，它不仅仅关乎收入——财富也关乎资产和财产，而财富税将确保那些积累了大量财富的人贡献他们公平的份额。
CryMore36
The problem is that the media is complicit.
It's no secret many media companies are owned by the same umbrella group. Their coverage of the disparity in wealth is minimal. It's all "royal family, migrant and brexit" nonesense.
No accountability of CEO's, MP's or social issues.
问题是媒体是同谋。
众所周知，许多媒体公司都隶属于同一个保护伞集团。它们对贫富差距的报道很少。都是些“皇室、移民和英国脱欧”之类的扯淡。
对CEO、议员或社会问题没有问责机制。
The problem is that the media is complicit.
It's no secret many media companies are owned by the same umbrella group. Their coverage of the disparity in wealth is minimal. It's all "royal family, migrant and brexit" nonesense.
No accountability of CEO's, MP's or social issues.
问题是媒体是同谋。
众所周知，许多媒体公司都隶属于同一个保护伞集团。它们对贫富差距的报道很少。都是些“皇室、移民和英国脱欧”之类的扯淡。
对CEO、议员或社会问题没有问责机制。
ken-doh
France tried this and they all moved, some to the UK. They buy one Mclaren and it has more VAT then most people pay tax for the entire year.
If you eat the rich, they won't be buying Mclarens and can quite easily move to Monaco or any other country.
法国尝试过，然后富人都搬走了，一些人搬到了英国。他们买了一辆迈凯轮，它的增值税比大多数人全年缴纳的税还要多。
如果你“劫富济贫”，他们就不会买迈凯轮跑车，他们可以很容易地再搬到摩纳哥或其他国家。
France tried this and they all moved, some to the UK. They buy one Mclaren and it has more VAT then most people pay tax for the entire year.
If you eat the rich, they won't be buying Mclarens and can quite easily move to Monaco or any other country.
法国尝试过，然后富人都搬走了，一些人搬到了英国。他们买了一辆迈凯轮，它的增值税比大多数人全年缴纳的税还要多。
如果你“劫富济贫”，他们就不会买迈凯轮跑车，他们可以很容易地再搬到摩纳哥或其他国家。
MammothDimension
A wealth tax is tricky to implement. Transactions define a value to be taxed, but just having wealth doesn't really define how much of it there is, in terms of money.
This is why progressively taxing income is so important. The idea is to prevent these dragon hoards, because taxing and distributing them is more difficult than having a violent revolution with all the horror that comes with one. The dragons have the power and will resist any attempt to reduce their wealth.
财富税实施起来很棘手。交易定义了征税的价值，但仅仅拥有财富并不能真正定义有多少财富，就金钱而言。
这就是为什么累进所得税如此重要。这个想法是为了防止这些恶龙的囤积，因为征税和分配它们比进行一场暴力革命和随之而来的所有恐怖都要困难得多。恶龙有力量，并将抵制任何企图减少它们财富的措施。
A wealth tax is tricky to implement. Transactions define a value to be taxed, but just having wealth doesn't really define how much of it there is, in terms of money.
This is why progressively taxing income is so important. The idea is to prevent these dragon hoards, because taxing and distributing them is more difficult than having a violent revolution with all the horror that comes with one. The dragons have the power and will resist any attempt to reduce their wealth.
财富税实施起来很棘手。交易定义了征税的价值，但仅仅拥有财富并不能真正定义有多少财富，就金钱而言。
这就是为什么累进所得税如此重要。这个想法是为了防止这些恶龙的囤积，因为征税和分配它们比进行一场暴力革命和随之而来的所有恐怖都要困难得多。恶龙有力量，并将抵制任何企图减少它们财富的措施。
CrastersKip
Why just billionaires? Those are likely to leave as fast as you approve that law, anyway. Argentina has a wealth tax that begins at USD 33k or so. You can progressively tax wealth that way and you're likely to collect more since those people are unlikely to have the means to leave altogether.
为什么只征收亿万富翁？不管怎样，只要你批准这项法案，这些人就可能很快离开。阿根廷的财富税从3.3万美元左右开始征收。你可以通过这种方式对财富累进征税，你可能会收取更多，因为这些人不太可能有办法完全离开这里。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Why just billionaires? Those are likely to leave as fast as you approve that law, anyway. Argentina has a wealth tax that begins at USD 33k or so. You can progressively tax wealth that way and you're likely to collect more since those people are unlikely to have the means to leave altogether.
为什么只征收亿万富翁？不管怎样，只要你批准这项法案，这些人就可能很快离开。阿根廷的财富税从3.3万美元左右开始征收。你可以通过这种方式对财富累进征税，你可能会收取更多，因为这些人不太可能有办法完全离开这里。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Vladsamir
Our current PM is super fucking rich and entitled and our government has got a long track record of doing things without the public voting on it. So this will never happen
我们的现任首相就超级有钱，而且我们的政府有很长一段在没有获得公众投票许可的情况下做事的记录。所以这（征收富人税）永远不会发生的
Our current PM is super fucking rich and entitled and our government has got a long track record of doing things without the public voting on it. So this will never happen
我们的现任首相就超级有钱，而且我们的政府有很长一段在没有获得公众投票许可的情况下做事的记录。所以这（征收富人税）永远不会发生的
plawwell
Billionaires have choices where they live. They can easily move to a different country if their current country gets too aggressive with tax burden.
亿万富翁可以选择住在哪里。如果他们现在的国家对税收负担过于严厉，他们可以很容易地搬到另一个国家。
Billionaires have choices where they live. They can easily move to a different country if their current country gets too aggressive with tax burden.
亿万富翁可以选择住在哪里。如果他们现在的国家对税收负担过于严厉，他们可以很容易地搬到另一个国家。
beardsnest
It’s disgusting. We need a revolution. How can a ceo earn millions and millions. Rise up people!
太恶心了。我们需要一场革命。一个CEO凭什么能赚到几百万。起来吧，人们！
It’s disgusting. We need a revolution. How can a ceo earn millions and millions. Rise up people!
太恶心了。我们需要一场革命。一个CEO凭什么能赚到几百万。起来吧，人们！
很赞 0
收藏