联合工会呼吁对超级富豪征收1%的财富税，为英国公共部门加薪提供资金
正文翻译
(Sharon Graham, general secretary of the Unite trade unx, leads steel workers down Whitehall last year to demand more support for the industry. She says the British economy is broken.)
（去年，英国联合工会秘书长莎伦·格雷厄姆带领钢铁工人走上白厅，要求为该行业提供更多支持。她说，英国经济已经崩溃。）
新闻：
Unite calls for 1% wealth tax on super-rich to fund UK public sector pay rises
联合工会呼吁对超级富豪征收1%的财富税，为英国公共部门加薪提供资金
联合工会呼吁对超级富豪征收1%的财富税，为英国公共部门加薪提供资金
(Sharon Graham, general secretary of the Unite trade unx, leads steel workers down Whitehall last year to demand more support for the industry. She says the British economy is broken.)
（去年，英国联合工会秘书长莎伦·格雷厄姆带领钢铁工人走上白厅，要求为该行业提供更多支持。她说，英国经济已经崩溃。）
新闻：
Britain’s second biggest trade unx is calling on the new Labour government to introduce an emergency 1% wealth tax on the assets of the super-rich to pay for 10% pay rises for public sector workers and fill more than 100,000 NHS vacancies.
英国第二大工会呼吁新工党政府对超级富豪的资产征收1%的紧急财富税，以支付公共部门员工10%的加薪，并填补10万多个国家医疗体系职位空缺。
英国第二大工会呼吁新工党政府对超级富豪的资产征收1%的紧急财富税，以支付公共部门员工10%的加薪，并填补10万多个国家医疗体系职位空缺。
The demand from Unite is in one of several motions to the Trades unx Congress, which meets in Brighton next month, that will expose tensions between Keir Starmer’s government and sections of the unx movement. It comes as Rachel Reeves is preparing for her first budget as chancellor, on 30 October.
工会代表大会将于下月在布莱顿召开，联合工会的这一要求是向工会代表大会提出的几项动议之一，这将暴露出基尔·斯塔默政府与工会运动部分之间的紧张关系。10月30日，瑞秋·里夫斯正在准备她作为财政大臣的第一份预算。
工会代表大会将于下月在布莱顿召开，联合工会的这一要求是向工会代表大会提出的几项动议之一，这将暴露出基尔·斯塔默政府与工会运动部分之间的紧张关系。10月30日，瑞秋·里夫斯正在准备她作为财政大臣的第一份预算。
Labour MPs and ministers believe that the TUC conference could mark the moment when an effective truce between many unxs and Labour – helping Starmer’s general election campaign – may begin to break down as the prime minister and Reeves double down on their commitment to fiscal responsibility and stress the need for hard choices if the economy is to be restored to health.
工党议员和部长们认为，工会代表大会可能标志着许多工会和工党之间有效休战的时刻——这有助于斯塔默的大选竞选——可能开始破裂，因为首相和里夫斯加倍致力于财政责任，并强调如果经济要恢复健康，就必须做出艰难的选择。
工党议员和部长们认为，工会代表大会可能标志着许多工会和工党之间有效休战的时刻——这有助于斯塔默的大选竞选——可能开始破裂，因为首相和里夫斯加倍致力于财政责任，并强调如果经济要恢复健康，就必须做出艰难的选择。
Other key trade unxs are preparing to press for further policy changes from Labour, including abandoning the two-child benefit cap, which Starmer has so far resisted, and the reversal of the recent decision to end winter fuel payments for millions of pensioners, which has been causing a serious backlash among Labour backbenchers.
其他主要工会正准备向工党施压，要求其进一步改变政策，包括放弃两个孩子的福利上限，斯塔默迄今一直反对这一政策，以及撤销最近终止数百万养老金领取者冬季燃料补贴的决定，这一决定在工党后座议员中引起了严重反弹。
其他主要工会正准备向工党施压，要求其进一步改变政策，包括放弃两个孩子的福利上限，斯塔默迄今一直反对这一政策，以及撤销最近终止数百万养老金领取者冬季燃料补贴的决定，这一决定在工党后座议员中引起了严重反弹。
While Reeves is understood to be considering increases in capital gains and inheritance taxes in the budget, Unite’s motion to the TUC conference goes much further, saying that, with local authorities in financial peril, an urgently needed boost to public investment cannot wait for economic growth to materialise at an unspecified point in the future.
据了解，里夫斯正在考虑在预算中增加资本利得税和遗产税，而联合工会向工会大会提交的动议则更进一步，称地方当局面临财政危机，迫切需要的公共投资不能等到未来某个不确定的时间点经济增长才实现。
据了解，里夫斯正在考虑在预算中增加资本利得税和遗产税，而联合工会向工会大会提交的动议则更进一步，称地方当局面临财政危机，迫切需要的公共投资不能等到未来某个不确定的时间点经济增长才实现。
Unite’s plan is for a tax of 1% to be applied on the assets of those worth more than £4m, which it says would raise £25bn a year to fund investment in public services and avoid a return to austerity. Under the plan, someone with assets worth £6m would face a 1% tax on the £2m above the £4m threshold. These assets would include property, shares and bank accounts but would not include mortgaged property.
联合工会的计划是对价值超过400万英镑的资产征收1%的税，它表示，这将每年筹集250亿英镑，为公共服务投资提供资金，避免回到紧缩状态。根据该计划，资产价值600万英镑的人将对超过400万英镑的200万英镑征收1%的税。这些资产将包括房产、股票和银行账户，但不包括抵押房产。
联合工会的计划是对价值超过400万英镑的资产征收1%的税，它表示，这将每年筹集250亿英镑，为公共服务投资提供资金，避免回到紧缩状态。根据该计划，资产价值600万英镑的人将对超过400万英镑的200万英镑征收1%的税。这些资产将包括房产、股票和银行账户，但不包括抵押房产。
Unite points to research showing that the richest 50 families in the UK now have assets worth nearly £500bn.
联合工会指出，研究显示，英国最富有的50个家庭目前拥有近5000亿英镑的资产。
联合工会指出，研究显示，英国最富有的50个家庭目前拥有近5000亿英镑的资产。
Sharon Graham, the general secretary of Unite, said: “Unite’s resolution to the TUC on the economy calls things by their real name. The British economy is broken.
联合工会的秘书长沙伦·格雷厄姆说：“联合工会就经济问题向英国职工大会提出的决议是实事求是的。英国经济已经崩溃。
联合工会的秘书长沙伦·格雷厄姆说：“联合工会就经济问题向英国职工大会提出的决议是实事求是的。英国经济已经崩溃。
“Britain led the world’s first industrial revolution. But due to decades of underinvestment in manufacturing and national infrastructure, we are now falling disastrously behind other countries in the new technological age and the transition to net zero.
“英国领导了世界上第一次工业革命。但由于几十年来在制造业和国家基础设施方面的投资不足，我们现在在新技术时代和向净零排放的过渡中严重落后于其他国家。
“英国领导了世界上第一次工业革命。但由于几十年来在制造业和国家基础设施方面的投资不足，我们现在在新技术时代和向净零排放的过渡中严重落后于其他国家。
“We need serious investment in our crippled public services and in industry to ensure a prosperous future for Britain’s workers and their communities. We won’t get the money needed for that just by waiting for growth.”
“我们需要对我们残缺的公共服务和工业进行认真的投资，以确保英国工人和他们的社区有一个繁荣的未来。我们无法通过等待增长来获得所需的资金。”
“我们需要对我们残缺的公共服务和工业进行认真的投资，以确保英国工人和他们的社区有一个繁荣的未来。我们无法通过等待增长来获得所需的资金。”
Unite was a big donor to the Labour party in 2019 but did not contribute to this year’s election efforts, saying the election manifesto did not go far enough on protecting workers’ rights and jobs in the oil and gas industry.
联合工会在2019年是工党的一大捐助者，但没有为今年的选举做出贡献，称选举宣言在保护石油和天然气行业工人的权利和就业方面做得不够。
联合工会在2019年是工党的一大捐助者，但没有为今年的选举做出贡献，称选举宣言在保护石油和天然气行业工人的权利和就业方面做得不够。
The RMT transport unx has also tabled a motion to the conference calling for a wealth tax to fund public investment, and the abandonment of what it describes as “unnecessarily restrictive and arbitrary fiscal rules” which limit the government’s ability to borrow.
英国运输业工会也向大会提交了一份动议，呼吁征收财富税，为公共投资提供资金，并放弃它所称的“不必要的限制性和武断的财政规则”，这些规则限制了政府的借贷能力。
英国运输业工会也向大会提交了一份动议，呼吁征收财富税，为公共投资提供资金，并放弃它所称的“不必要的限制性和武断的财政规则”，这些规则限制了政府的借贷能力。
A motion from the shop workers’ unx, Usdaw, calls for an end to the two-child benefit cap, and an amendment to the same motion from the PCS civil service unx calls on the TUC to “oppose cuts to the winter fuel allowance” and “demands appropriate taxation of corporations and the super-rich to fund the social security improvements identified in this motion”.
来自商店工人工会Usdaw的一项动议呼吁终止两个孩子的福利上限，来自PCS公务员工会的一项修正案呼吁工会代表大会“反对削减冬季燃料补贴”，并“要求对公司和超级富豪适当征税，以资助这项动议中确定的社会保障改善”。
来自商店工人工会Usdaw的一项动议呼吁终止两个孩子的福利上限，来自PCS公务员工会的一项修正案呼吁工会代表大会“反对削减冬季燃料补贴”，并“要求对公司和超级富豪适当征税，以资助这项动议中确定的社会保障改善”。
The TUC is also expected to press for “pay restoration” to make up for a decade of real-terms salary cuts for public sector workers.
预计英国工会代表大会还将敦促“薪酬恢复”，以弥补公共部门工人十年来的实际工资削减。
预计英国工会代表大会还将敦促“薪酬恢复”，以弥补公共部门工人十年来的实际工资削减。
Such demands will further add to the strains between Labour and its unx backers after a series of pay deals between the Starmer-led government and striking workers in sectors ranging from healthcare to the railways.
这些要求将进一步加剧工党与其工会支持者之间的紧张关系。此前，斯塔默领导的政府与从医疗保健到铁路等行业的罢工工人达成了一系列薪资协议。
这些要求将进一步加剧工党与其工会支持者之间的紧张关系。此前，斯塔默领导的政府与从医疗保健到铁路等行业的罢工工人达成了一系列薪资协议。
评论翻译
WalkerCam
Why are people in these comments so against this? There has been a huge upward transfer of wealth through neoliberalism and austerity, but apparently the other way around is impossible somehow??
为什么这些评论里的人如此反对这个？通过新自由主义和紧缩政策，财富有了巨大的向上转移，但显然反过来是不可能的？？
Why are people in these comments so against this? There has been a huge upward transfer of wealth through neoliberalism and austerity, but apparently the other way around is impossible somehow??
为什么这些评论里的人如此反对这个？通过新自由主义和紧缩政策，财富有了巨大的向上转移，但显然反过来是不可能的？？
ProfessionalMockery
Beats me. The super wealthy are richer than ever before while everyone else is poorer and growth is incredibly slow. It doesn't take a genius to join up the dots, that money isn't flowing through the economy anymore.
We won't see a reversal of this decline until wealth inequality is addressed, and I don't see a way of doing that without taxing it back.
我不明白。超级富豪比以往任何时候都更富有，而其他所有人都更穷，经济增长也非常缓慢。不需要天才就能把这些点连起来——钱不再在经济中流动了。
在财富不平等问题得到解决之前，我们不会看到这种下降趋势的逆转，而我认为没有办法在不向其征税的情况下做到这一点。
Beats me. The super wealthy are richer than ever before while everyone else is poorer and growth is incredibly slow. It doesn't take a genius to join up the dots, that money isn't flowing through the economy anymore.
We won't see a reversal of this decline until wealth inequality is addressed, and I don't see a way of doing that without taxing it back.
我不明白。超级富豪比以往任何时候都更富有，而其他所有人都更穷，经济增长也非常缓慢。不需要天才就能把这些点连起来——钱不再在经济中流动了。
在财富不平等问题得到解决之前，我们不会看到这种下降趋势的逆转，而我认为没有办法在不向其征税的情况下做到这一点。
entropy_bucket
Even more than tax(which i 100% agree we need), we need to find a way of making a cultural shift where hoarding billions is frowned upon and not something to aspire to.
甚至比税收（我百分之百同意我们需要税收）更重要的是，我们需要找到一种文化转变的方法，让人们不赞成囤积数十亿美元，而不是渴望这样做。
Even more than tax(which i 100% agree we need), we need to find a way of making a cultural shift where hoarding billions is frowned upon and not something to aspire to.
甚至比税收（我百分之百同意我们需要税收）更重要的是，我们需要找到一种文化转变的方法，让人们不赞成囤积数十亿美元，而不是渴望这样做。
ProfessionalMockery
Which is why I point this stuff out whenever I can haha. It's shocking how many people don't even see what the problem is. (I mean it's not that shocking when you look at how hard people like Murdoch try to point people at immigrants instead)
这就是为什么我一有机会就指出来，呵呵。令人震惊的是，很多人甚至没有看到问题是什么。（我的意思是，当你看到像默多克这样的人如何努力地将人们的关注点指向移民时，这并不那么令人震惊。）
Which is why I point this stuff out whenever I can haha. It's shocking how many people don't even see what the problem is. (I mean it's not that shocking when you look at how hard people like Murdoch try to point people at immigrants instead)
这就是为什么我一有机会就指出来，呵呵。令人震惊的是，很多人甚至没有看到问题是什么。（我的意思是，当你看到像默多克这样的人如何努力地将人们的关注点指向移民时，这并不那么令人震惊。）
ThetonnSussex
I think it’s because the people who complain about the very wealthy hoarding wealth don’t differentiate between them and those who are actually investing their money properly into industries and the market, doing something with their money and contributing to society through things like actual philanthropy.
我认为这是因为那些抱怨富人囤积财富的人没有区分他们和那些真正把钱正确地投资到行业和市场上，用他们的钱做点什么，通过真正的慈善事业为社会做贡献的人。
I think it’s because the people who complain about the very wealthy hoarding wealth don’t differentiate between them and those who are actually investing their money properly into industries and the market, doing something with their money and contributing to society through things like actual philanthropy.
我认为这是因为那些抱怨富人囤积财富的人没有区分他们和那些真正把钱正确地投资到行业和市场上，用他们的钱做点什么，通过真正的慈善事业为社会做贡献的人。
Beddingtonsquire
Everyone else isn't poorer. Of course there is a case by case basis but in general people are MUCH richer than they were 50, 30, 20 years ago.
Technology, empowered by markets have made us all much richer. Consider how much it would cost to have all the music in the world in 1994, or even 2004, it would be millions, today it's about £10 a month. Cars are substantially more efficient and safer. Pick some area, everything from health to trainers, we have better stuff than we used to and it's widely available. In 1994 few people had mobile phones or internet access, today homeless people have smartphones to access the internet on the go.
The areas that haven't fared well are those largely restricted by legislation. Housing, which is very difficult to get permission to build, has been restricted as the population has grown.
Would you rather be poorer with less inequality or richer with more inequality? From an economic perspective those are the trade-offs we're looking at.
其他人并不是更穷。当然，具体情况具体分析，但总的来说，人们比50年、30年、20年前富裕得多。
在市场的推动下，技术让我们变得更加富有。想想看，在1994年，甚至是2004年，拥有世界上所有的音乐需要花费多少钱，那将是数百万，而今天大约是每月10英镑。汽车的效率和安全性大大提高。选择一些领域，从健康到教练，我们有比过去更好的东西，而且可以广泛使用。1994年，很少有人有移动电话或互联网接入，今天无家可归的人都有智能手机可以随时上网。
表现不佳的是那些在很大程度上受到法律限制的领域。随着人口的增长，很难获得许可的住房也受到了限制。
你是愿意更穷，不平等更少，还是更富，但不平等更严重？从经济角度来看，这些都是我们正在考虑的权衡。
Everyone else isn't poorer. Of course there is a case by case basis but in general people are MUCH richer than they were 50, 30, 20 years ago.
Technology, empowered by markets have made us all much richer. Consider how much it would cost to have all the music in the world in 1994, or even 2004, it would be millions, today it's about £10 a month. Cars are substantially more efficient and safer. Pick some area, everything from health to trainers, we have better stuff than we used to and it's widely available. In 1994 few people had mobile phones or internet access, today homeless people have smartphones to access the internet on the go.
The areas that haven't fared well are those largely restricted by legislation. Housing, which is very difficult to get permission to build, has been restricted as the population has grown.
Would you rather be poorer with less inequality or richer with more inequality? From an economic perspective those are the trade-offs we're looking at.
其他人并不是更穷。当然，具体情况具体分析，但总的来说，人们比50年、30年、20年前富裕得多。
在市场的推动下，技术让我们变得更加富有。想想看，在1994年，甚至是2004年，拥有世界上所有的音乐需要花费多少钱，那将是数百万，而今天大约是每月10英镑。汽车的效率和安全性大大提高。选择一些领域，从健康到教练，我们有比过去更好的东西，而且可以广泛使用。1994年，很少有人有移动电话或互联网接入，今天无家可归的人都有智能手机可以随时上网。
表现不佳的是那些在很大程度上受到法律限制的领域。随着人口的增长，很难获得许可的住房也受到了限制。
你是愿意更穷，不平等更少，还是更富，但不平等更严重？从经济角度来看，这些都是我们正在考虑的权衡。
ProfessionalMockery
That's not the choice we're dealing with. Most people have been getting a smaller and smaller slice of the pie throughout the late 20th century until now. You point out that although that has been happening, the pie has been getting bigger faster than inequality has been reducing, so people's lives have gotten better in total.
Look at growth statistics, that is no longer happening. The problem is the economy is driven mostly by average people. When most people get access to money, they spend it, and it flows through the economy. The ultra rich do not do this, they couldn't possibly spend it all, so they tend to acquire more assets in order to accumulate more wealth. The more money the ultra rich have, the less is circulating the economy.
As inequality grows, productivity shrinks, growth slows, inequality gets worse at an accelerated rate. Eventually you'll get to a point where the pie isn't growing enough to offset how fast everyone's share is being reduced. That is what we are looking at right now. People's lives are getting worse. Look how many more food banks we have, people can't heat their homes, the NHS is suffocating. We don't own our railways, our energy, our water, our houses.
The 20th century growth you describe was amazing, and I do believe it was because of capitalism, I'm not against capitalism. I just recognise that it worked so well because wealth inequality was much less that it is now, and would like to see it reduced back to those sorts of levels.
这不是我们正在面对的选择。从20世纪末到现在，大多数人得到的蛋糕越来越小。你指出，尽管这种情况一直在发生，但蛋糕变大的速度快于不平等减少的速度，所以人们的生活总体上变得更好了。
看看增长统计数据，这种情况已不再发生。问题在于经济主要是由普通人驱动的。当大多数人拿到钱的时候，他们会花掉它，然后它就会在经济中流动。但超级富豪不这样做，他们不可能花光所有的钱，所以他们倾向于获得更多的资产，以积累更多的财富。超级富豪拥有的钱越多，经济中的流通就越少。
随着不平等加剧，生产率下降，增长放缓，不平等加速恶化。最终，你会到达一个临界点，即蛋糕的增长不足以抵消每个人份额减少的速度。这就是我们现在所看到的。人们的生活越来越糟。看看我们有多少食品银行，人们无法取暖，国家医疗体系令人窒息。我们不拥有我们的铁路，我们的能源，我们的水，我们的房子。
你所描述的20世纪的增长是惊人的，我相信这是因为资本主义，我并不反对资本主义。我只是认识到，它之所以如此有效，是因为那时财富不平等的程度比现在小得多，我希望看到它减少到那些水平。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
That's not the choice we're dealing with. Most people have been getting a smaller and smaller slice of the pie throughout the late 20th century until now. You point out that although that has been happening, the pie has been getting bigger faster than inequality has been reducing, so people's lives have gotten better in total.
Look at growth statistics, that is no longer happening. The problem is the economy is driven mostly by average people. When most people get access to money, they spend it, and it flows through the economy. The ultra rich do not do this, they couldn't possibly spend it all, so they tend to acquire more assets in order to accumulate more wealth. The more money the ultra rich have, the less is circulating the economy.
As inequality grows, productivity shrinks, growth slows, inequality gets worse at an accelerated rate. Eventually you'll get to a point where the pie isn't growing enough to offset how fast everyone's share is being reduced. That is what we are looking at right now. People's lives are getting worse. Look how many more food banks we have, people can't heat their homes, the NHS is suffocating. We don't own our railways, our energy, our water, our houses.
The 20th century growth you describe was amazing, and I do believe it was because of capitalism, I'm not against capitalism. I just recognise that it worked so well because wealth inequality was much less that it is now, and would like to see it reduced back to those sorts of levels.
这不是我们正在面对的选择。从20世纪末到现在，大多数人得到的蛋糕越来越小。你指出，尽管这种情况一直在发生，但蛋糕变大的速度快于不平等减少的速度，所以人们的生活总体上变得更好了。
看看增长统计数据，这种情况已不再发生。问题在于经济主要是由普通人驱动的。当大多数人拿到钱的时候，他们会花掉它，然后它就会在经济中流动。但超级富豪不这样做，他们不可能花光所有的钱，所以他们倾向于获得更多的资产，以积累更多的财富。超级富豪拥有的钱越多，经济中的流通就越少。
随着不平等加剧，生产率下降，增长放缓，不平等加速恶化。最终，你会到达一个临界点，即蛋糕的增长不足以抵消每个人份额减少的速度。这就是我们现在所看到的。人们的生活越来越糟。看看我们有多少食品银行，人们无法取暖，国家医疗体系令人窒息。我们不拥有我们的铁路，我们的能源，我们的水，我们的房子。
你所描述的20世纪的增长是惊人的，我相信这是因为资本主义，我并不反对资本主义。我只是认识到，它之所以如此有效，是因为那时财富不平等的程度比现在小得多，我希望看到它减少到那些水平。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Fred_Blogs
It's impossible because we live in a globalised economy where the wealthy can simply shop around for favourable jurisdictions at will. If Britain becomes a less favourable jurisdiction then they can simply shift their money to another one, which means less investment in Britain.
I wouldn't say any of this is a particularly ideal situation to be in, but seeing as no one is suggesting upending the entire global economy it's the situation we have to deal with.
这是不可能的，因为我们生活在一个全球化的经济中，富人可以随心所欲地四处寻找有利的司法管辖区。如果英国成为一个不那么有利的司法管辖区，那么他们可以简单地将资金转移到另一个国家，这意味着在英国的投资减少。
我不会说这是一个特别理想的情况，但鉴于没有人建议颠覆整个全球经济，这就是我们必须处理的情况。
It's impossible because we live in a globalised economy where the wealthy can simply shop around for favourable jurisdictions at will. If Britain becomes a less favourable jurisdiction then they can simply shift their money to another one, which means less investment in Britain.
I wouldn't say any of this is a particularly ideal situation to be in, but seeing as no one is suggesting upending the entire global economy it's the situation we have to deal with.
这是不可能的，因为我们生活在一个全球化的经济中，富人可以随心所欲地四处寻找有利的司法管辖区。如果英国成为一个不那么有利的司法管辖区，那么他们可以简单地将资金转移到另一个国家，这意味着在英国的投资减少。
我不会说这是一个特别理想的情况，但鉴于没有人建议颠覆整个全球经济，这就是我们必须处理的情况。
potpan0Black Country
Neoliberal capitalism is built on the idea that as few restrictions as possible should be placed on the wealthy because wealth will eventually trickle down. That patently isn't happening. The ultra-rich are getting even richer while the vast majority of us find our incomes stagnate or decline in real terms.
So if the wealth isn't going to trickle down to ensure people have high quality lives, and if we can't raise taxes to ensure people have high quality lives, then what exactly are we meant to do? Sit on our hands and accept our lives slowly getting worse despite humanity being the most productive it has ever been?
新自由主义资本主义建立在这样一种理念之上，即对富人施加尽可能少的限制，因为财富最终会涓滴而下。这显然不会发生。当我们绝大多数人发现自己的实际收入停滞不前或下降时，超级富豪们却变得更加富有。
因此，如果财富不能通过涓滴效应来确保人们拥有高质量的生活，如果我们不能提高税收来确保人们拥有高质量的生活，那么我们到底要做什么呢？袖手旁观，接受我们的生活慢慢变得更糟，尽管人类的生产力达到了有史以来的最高水平吗？
Neoliberal capitalism is built on the idea that as few restrictions as possible should be placed on the wealthy because wealth will eventually trickle down. That patently isn't happening. The ultra-rich are getting even richer while the vast majority of us find our incomes stagnate or decline in real terms.
So if the wealth isn't going to trickle down to ensure people have high quality lives, and if we can't raise taxes to ensure people have high quality lives, then what exactly are we meant to do? Sit on our hands and accept our lives slowly getting worse despite humanity being the most productive it has ever been?
新自由主义资本主义建立在这样一种理念之上，即对富人施加尽可能少的限制，因为财富最终会涓滴而下。这显然不会发生。当我们绝大多数人发现自己的实际收入停滞不前或下降时，超级富豪们却变得更加富有。
因此，如果财富不能通过涓滴效应来确保人们拥有高质量的生活，如果我们不能提高税收来确保人们拥有高质量的生活，那么我们到底要做什么呢？袖手旁观，接受我们的生活慢慢变得更糟，尽管人类的生产力达到了有史以来的最高水平吗？
Fred_Blogs
The depressing reality is that I think we're just screwed. Britain is declining in importance in the global economy, and there is no practical way to change that.
Without cutting ourselves off from large swathes of the global economy we have very little control over the money coming into or leaving the country.
If we do bite the bullet and refuse to deal with any country that doesn't adhere to our tax regime, then the practical reality is that less people will do business in Britain. Which will accelerate our decline.
It's not particularly happy news, but it's where we are.
令人沮丧的现实是，我觉得我们完蛋了。英国在全球经济中的重要性正在下降，没有切实可行的办法来改变这一点。
如果不把自己与全球经济的大片区域隔离开来，我们就很难控制流入或流出这个国家的资金。
但如果我们咬紧牙关，拒绝与任何不遵守我们税收制度的国家打交道，那么实际的现实是，在英国做生意的人会更少。这将加速我们的衰落。
这不是特别令人高兴的消息，但这就是我们的处境。
The depressing reality is that I think we're just screwed. Britain is declining in importance in the global economy, and there is no practical way to change that.
Without cutting ourselves off from large swathes of the global economy we have very little control over the money coming into or leaving the country.
If we do bite the bullet and refuse to deal with any country that doesn't adhere to our tax regime, then the practical reality is that less people will do business in Britain. Which will accelerate our decline.
It's not particularly happy news, but it's where we are.
令人沮丧的现实是，我觉得我们完蛋了。英国在全球经济中的重要性正在下降，没有切实可行的办法来改变这一点。
如果不把自己与全球经济的大片区域隔离开来，我们就很难控制流入或流出这个国家的资金。
但如果我们咬紧牙关，拒绝与任何不遵守我们税收制度的国家打交道，那么实际的现实是，在英国做生意的人会更少。这将加速我们的衰落。
这不是特别令人高兴的消息，但这就是我们的处境。
LorryWaraLorry
Because the super-rich tend to have options. Options of creating corporations in pretty much anywhere in the world and having enough resources to consult tax accountants and lawyers to find loopholes to not pay more taxes.
This generally means the super-rich moving their money elsewhere away from countries that impose a wealth tax.
Whether this will result in a net gain or loss in tax revenue is another question. I cannot say for sure, but it is not hard to imagine losing 0.1% from billionaires being more significant than gaining 1% from millionaires (for example)
因为超级富豪往往有选择权。选择在世界上几乎任何地方创建公司，并有足够的资源咨询税务会计师和律师，以找到漏洞，以避免支付更多的税。
这通常意味着超级富豪将资金从征收财富税的国家转移到其他地方。
这是否会导致税收的净收益或损失是另一个问题。我不能肯定地说，但不难想象，从亿万富翁那里损失0.1%比从百万富翁那里获得1%更重要（举个例子）。
Because the super-rich tend to have options. Options of creating corporations in pretty much anywhere in the world and having enough resources to consult tax accountants and lawyers to find loopholes to not pay more taxes.
This generally means the super-rich moving their money elsewhere away from countries that impose a wealth tax.
Whether this will result in a net gain or loss in tax revenue is another question. I cannot say for sure, but it is not hard to imagine losing 0.1% from billionaires being more significant than gaining 1% from millionaires (for example)
因为超级富豪往往有选择权。选择在世界上几乎任何地方创建公司，并有足够的资源咨询税务会计师和律师，以找到漏洞，以避免支付更多的税。
这通常意味着超级富豪将资金从征收财富税的国家转移到其他地方。
这是否会导致税收的净收益或损失是另一个问题。我不能肯定地说，但不难想象，从亿万富翁那里损失0.1%比从百万富翁那里获得1%更重要（举个例子）。
ProletAryan
The state's function as the managing committee of capital means it is nothing more than an organ of the plutocracy so "tax the rich" just means using the state to take wealth from the rich and put it in the hands of the ultra rich.
If the unxs weren't totally incompetent, they'd be demanding higher wages and more employment and nothing else. The point should be to force the capitalists into extreme profit competition through productivity growth, not begging them for bread and circuses. Anything else we can and should do ourselves outside of state oversight.
国家作为资本管理委员会的职能意味着它只不过是一个财阀的机构，所以“向富人征税”只是意味着利用国家从富人手中夺走财富，并将其放在超级富豪手中。
如果工会不是完全无能，他们就会要求更高的工资和更多的就业机会，仅此而已。重点应该是通过提高生产率迫使资本家进行极端的利润竞争，而不是乞求他们施舍小恩小惠。其他的我们可以而且应该在国家监管之外自己实现。
The state's function as the managing committee of capital means it is nothing more than an organ of the plutocracy so "tax the rich" just means using the state to take wealth from the rich and put it in the hands of the ultra rich.
If the unxs weren't totally incompetent, they'd be demanding higher wages and more employment and nothing else. The point should be to force the capitalists into extreme profit competition through productivity growth, not begging them for bread and circuses. Anything else we can and should do ourselves outside of state oversight.
国家作为资本管理委员会的职能意味着它只不过是一个财阀的机构，所以“向富人征税”只是意味着利用国家从富人手中夺走财富，并将其放在超级富豪手中。
如果工会不是完全无能，他们就会要求更高的工资和更多的就业机会，仅此而已。重点应该是通过提高生产率迫使资本家进行极端的利润竞争，而不是乞求他们施舍小恩小惠。其他的我们可以而且应该在国家监管之外自己实现。
FilthyRilthy
Has to be a tax on the super rich or this isnt going to work. Low end Millionares are not super rich. Its the multi-million/billionares that are a bigger problem.
必须对超级富豪征税，否则这行不通。低端百万富翁并不是超级富豪。那些数百万/亿万富翁才是更大的问题。
Has to be a tax on the super rich or this isnt going to work. Low end Millionares are not super rich. Its the multi-million/billionares that are a bigger problem.
必须对超级富豪征税，否则这行不通。低端百万富翁并不是超级富豪。那些数百万/亿万富翁才是更大的问题。
247hezza
It’s a tax on wealth not income
这是对财富而不是收入征税
It’s a tax on wealth not income
这是对财富而不是收入征税
superioso
It's not exactly a new thing - both Spain and Norway have similar wealth taxes.
这并不是什么新鲜事——西班牙和挪威都有类似的财富税。
It's not exactly a new thing - both Spain and Norway have similar wealth taxes.
这并不是什么新鲜事——西班牙和挪威都有类似的财富税。
很赞 4
收藏