The annual Forbes 400 lists prove that -- with occasional blips -- the rich do indeed get richer. Nonetheless, the Senate voted last week to supply major aid to the rich in their pursuit of even greater wealth.
每年的 Forbes 400 榜单证明——偶尔会有小波动——富人确实在变得更富。尽管如此，参议院上周仍投票决定：在富人追求更大财富的道路上，给予他们一项“重磅援助”。
The Senate decided that the dividends an individual receives should be 50 percent free of tax in 2003, 100 percent tax-free in 2004 through 2006 and then again fully taxable in 2007. The mental flexibility the Senate demonstrated in crafting these zigzags is breathtaking. What it has put in motion, though, is clear: If enacted, these changes would further tilt the tax scales toward the rich.
参议院决定：个人收到的股息在 2003 年有 50% 免税，2004 至 2006 年则 100% 免税，而到了 2007 年又恢复为全额应税。参议院在设计这种“之”字形规则时所展现的“思维柔韧性”，令人叹为观止。但它推动的方向非常清楚：如果法案最终通过，这些变化会进一步把税收天平向富人倾斜。
Let me, as a member of that non-endangered species, give you an example of how the scales are currently balanced. The taxes I pay to the federal government, including the payroll tax that is paid for me by my employer, Berkshire Hathaway, are roughly the same proportion of my income Ð about 30 percent -- as that paid by the receptionist in our office. My case is not atypical -- my earnings, like those of many rich people, are a mix of capital gains and ordinary income -- nor is it affected by tax shelters (I've never used any). As it works out, I pay a somewhat higher rate for my combination of salary, investment and capital gain income than our receptionist does. But she pays a far higher portion of her income in payroll taxes than I do.
让我作为这种“并未濒危的物种”（也就是富人）的一员，给你举个例子，看看当前税收天平大致是怎么“平衡”的。我向联邦政府缴的税——包括我的雇主 Berkshire Hathaway 为我缴纳的工资税（payroll tax）——占我收入的比例，大致与我们办公室的前台接待员相同：约 30%。我的情况并不特殊——我的收入和许多富人一样，是资本利得与普通收入的组合；也没有使用任何避税工具（我从来没用过）。最终算下来，我在“工资 + 投资收益 + 资本利得”的综合税率上，甚至比那位接待员还略高一些。但她在工资税上缴纳的比例，却远远高于我。
She's not complaining: Both of us know we were lucky to be born in America. But I was luckier in that I came wired at birth with a talent for capital allocation -- a valuable ability to have had in this country during the past half-century. Credit America for most of this value, not me. If the receptionist and I had both been born in, say, Bangladesh, the story would have been far different. There, the market value of our respective talents would not have varied greatly.
她并没有抱怨：我们都知道，出生在 America 已经很幸运。但我更幸运，因为我天生就“接线”了资本配置（capital allocation）的天赋——在过去半个世纪的这个国家里，这是一种非常值钱的能力。这个价值主要该归功于 America，而不是我本人。假如那位接待员和我都出生在比如 Bangladesh，故事就会完全不同。在那里，我们各自天赋的“市场价格”不会有如此巨大的差别。
Now the Senate says that dividends should be tax-free to recipients. Suppose this measure goes through and the directors of Berkshire Hathaway (which does not now pay a dividend) therefore decide to pay $1 billion in dividends next year. Owning 31 percent of Berkshire, I would receive $310 million in additional income, owe not another dime in federal tax, and see my tax rate plunge to 3 percent.
现在参议院说，股息对收款人应当免税。假设这项措施最终通过，而 Berkshire Hathaway 的董事会（公司目前不发股息）因此决定明年发放 10 亿美元股息。由于我持有 Berkshire 31% 的股份，我会额外得到 3.1 亿美元收入，一分联邦税都不用再多交，并且我的税率会骤降到 3%。
And our receptionist? She'd still be paying about 30 percent, which means she would be contributing about 10 times the proportion of her income that I would to such government pursuits as fighting terrorism, waging wars and supporting the elderly.
那我们那位接待员呢？她仍然要缴大约 30% 的税，这意味着：在政府的各项支出——比如反恐、发动战争、赡养老人——上，她要拿出自己收入中大约是我十倍的比例来“出钱”。
Let me repeat the point: Her overall federal tax rate would be 10 times what my rate would be.
我再重复一遍要点：她的联邦总体税率，将会是我的 10 倍。
When I was young, President Kennedy asked Americans to "pay any price, bear any burden" for our country. Against that challenge, the 3 percent overall federal tax rate I would pay -- if a Berkshire dividend were to be tax-free-- seems a bit light.
我年轻时，President Kennedy 曾要求美国人为了国家“付出任何代价，承担任何负担”。对照这种号召，如果 Berkshire 的股息免税、而我整体联邦税率会降到 3%，那就显得有点“太轻了”。
Administration officials say that the $310 million suddenly added to my wallet would stimulate the economy because I would invest it and thereby create jobs. But they conveniently forget that if Berkshire kept the money, it would invest that same amount, creating jobs as well.
政府官员说，突然多进我口袋的 3.1 亿美元会刺激经济，因为我会把它投出去，从而创造就业。但他们很“顺手”就忘了：如果 Berkshire 把这笔钱留在公司，公司同样会投资同样的金额，也同样会创造就业。
The Senate's plan invites corporations -- indeed, virtually commands them -- to contort their behavior in a major way. Were the plan to be enacted, shareholders would logically respond by asking the corporations they own to pay no more dividends in 2003, when they would be partially taxed, but instead to pay the skipped amounts in 2004, when they'd be tax-free. Similarly, in 2006, the last year of the plan, companies should pay double their normal dividend and then avoid dividends altogether in 2007.
参议院的方案会“引诱”企业——甚至几乎是在“命令”企业——以一种重大的方式扭曲自身行为。如果该方案通过，股东从理性出发会要求自己持有的公司：在 2003 年不要再发股息（那一年股息仍要部分纳税），而把这部分“跳过的股息”挪到 2004 年再发（那一年股息免税）。同样地，在 2006 年——该方案的最后一年——公司应该发放相当于平时两倍的股息，然后在 2007 年彻底避免发股息。
Overall, it's hard to conceive of anything sillier than the schedule the Senate has laid out. Indeed, the first President Bush had a name for such activities: "voodoo economics." The manipulation of enactment and sunset dates of tax changes is Enron-style accounting, and a Congress that has recently demanded honest corporate numbers should now look hard at its own practices.
总体来看，很难想象还有什么比参议院制定的这套时间表更荒唐。事实上，第一任 President Bush 给这种做法起过一个名字：“voodoo economics”。通过操纵税改的生效日期与到期失效日期（sunset dates）来做文章，本质上就是 Enron 式会计。一个刚刚还在要求企业披露诚实数字的国会，现在应该好好审视一下自己的做法。
Proponents of cutting tax rates on dividends argue that the move will stimulate the economy. A large amount of stimulus, of course, should already be on the way from the huge and growing deficit the government is now running. I have no strong views on whether more action on this front is warranted. But if it is, don't cut the taxes of people with huge portfolios of stocks held directly. (Small investors owning stock held through 401(k)s are already tax-favored.) Instead, give reductions to those who both need and will spend the money gained. Enact a Social Security tax "holiday" or give a flat-sum rebate to people with low incomes. Putting $1,000 in the pockets of 310,000 families with urgent needs is going to provide far more stimulus to the economy than putting the same $310 million in my pockets.
主张降低股息税率的人认为，这一举措会刺激经济。当然，政府当前巨额且不断扩大的财政赤字，本身就会带来相当规模的刺激。我对是否还需要在这方面采取更多行动没有强烈看法。但如果确实要做，就别去给那些直接持有巨额股票组合的人减税。（通过 401(k)s 持股的小投资者本来就享有税收优惠。）相反，应该把减税给那些既需要、也会把新增收入花出去的人。可以实行 Social Security 税的“假期”，或向低收入人群发放统一金额的退税。把 1,000 美元放进 31 万个急需用钱的家庭口袋里，对经济的刺激，肯定远大于把同样的 3.1 亿美元放进我的口袋里。
When you listen to tax-cut rhetoric, remember that giving one class of taxpayer a "break" requires -- now or down the line -- that an equivalent burden be imposed on other parties. In other words, if I get a break, someone else pays. Government can't deliver a free lunch to the country as a whole. It can, however, determine who pays for lunch. And last week the Senate handed the bill to the wrong party.
当你听到各种“减税”口号时，要记住：给某一类纳税人一份“优惠”，就意味着——现在或将来——必须把等量的负担转嫁给其他人。换句话说，如果我得到减免，就会有别人来埋单。政府不可能给整个国家提供免费的午餐；但它确实可以决定，午餐由谁来付。上周，参议院把这张账单递给了不该买单的那一方。
Supporters of making dividends tax-free like to paint critics as promoters of class warfare. The fact is, however, that their proposal promotes class welfare. For my class.
支持把股息变成免税的人，喜欢把批评者描绘成“阶级斗争”的鼓吹者。然而事实是，他们的提案推动的不是阶级斗争，而是阶级福利——为我的阶级服务。
Warren Buffett is chief executive officer of Berkshire Hathaway Inc., a diversified holding company, and a director of The Washington Post Co., which has an investment in Berkshire Hathaway.
Warren Buffett 是 Berkshire Hathaway Inc. 的首席执行官，该公司是一家多元化控股公司；他同时也是 The Washington Post Co. 的董事，而该公司在 Berkshire Hathaway 中持有投资。