研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，英國(guó)削減燃油稅是一項(xiàng)有利于富人的倒退政策

newnortherner21
It's not just the fuel duty cut in a way. Eleven years of no fuel duty increase, whereas bus and rail fares go up every year. No fuel duty for aviation, and those on low incomes take fewer flights I expect.

在某種程度上，這不僅僅是燃油稅的削減。11年來(lái)燃油稅沒(méi)有增加，而公共汽車和鐵路票價(jià)卻每年都在上漲。航空不征收燃油稅，我預(yù)計(jì)低收入人群乘坐的航班會(huì)更少。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Lanky_Giraffe
It's absolutely wild that because a handful of wealthy bankers ride expensive road bikes from Richmond to their office in the City, they've managed to convince the public that owning and operating a car is for the working man, and cycling is for the elites.
In spite of an insane abundance of evidence to the contrary.

少數(shù)富有的銀行家騎著昂貴的公路自行車從里士滿到他們?cè)趥惗亟鹑诔堑霓k公室，他們成功地讓公眾相信擁有和駕駛汽車是工人的事，而騎自行車才是精英的事，這絕對(duì)是瘋狂的。
盡管有大量的證據(jù)表明事實(shí)并非如此。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Cast_Me-Aside-8.00
I used to live in Peterborough and cycled everywhere. It was awesome -- and obviously -- great for my health and wellbeing.
However, not everywhere is particularly flat and cycling infrastructure is generally abysmal.

我以前住在彼得伯勒，到處騎自行車。這太棒了——顯然——對(duì)我的健康和幸福很有好處。
然而，并不是所有地方都特別平坦，自行車基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施普遍糟糕透頂。

tzimeworm
I have absolutely no doubt that if they were raising fuel duty the Guardian would have an article about how already strained nurses who have had real term pay cuts and who need to drive to work to look after our sick and needy can't afford to spend more on fuel and the this just further proves the Tories don't care about the poor

我毫不懷疑，如果他們提高燃油稅，《衛(wèi)報(bào)》就會(huì)有一篇文章，說(shuō)那些已經(jīng)很緊張的護(hù)士們，她們的工資已經(jīng)被削減了，她們需要開(kāi)車去上班照顧我們的病人和需要幫助的人，她們負(fù)擔(dān)不起更多的燃油費(fèi)，這進(jìn)一步證明了保守黨不關(guān)心窮人

mal221
This new methodology of who gets the most of the entire tax rebate is absolutely ridiculous. This is not what is meant by a regressive tax. Rich people are going to get more of a monetary bonus on any tax cut. They pay more tax. This article is absolute nonsense. If someone hands you 10 pound and hands your friend 20 pounds, you don't say "Well no one should get any money then." It's such an insane way of thinking about taxation.

這種關(guān)于誰(shuí)從全部退稅中獲得最多的新算法絕對(duì)是荒謬的。這不是累退稅的含義。富人將從任何減稅中獲得更多的金錢獎(jiǎng)勵(lì)。因?yàn)樗麄兝U納更多的稅。這篇文章完全是在扯淡。如果有人給你10英鎊，給你的朋友20英鎊，你不會(huì)說(shuō)“那么任何人都不應(yīng)該得到任何錢?！边@是一種非常瘋狂的稅收思考方式。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Taxington
A regressive tax cut is generaly done by cutting tax on things rich people buy more of.
A simplified example would be if we cut the duty on fine wine by 2% but standard beer by only 1%. In your example your pint would stay the same price but your freinds wine would go down more than your beer even though he is wealthier.
Petrol and diesel are things rich people spend a more heavily on than poorer people.
A more neutral tax cut would be something universal like VAT or national insurance. Things everyone contends with.
A progresive cut would be to cut things that disproportionately affect poorer people like food prices or bus fare.

遞減減稅通常是通過(guò)對(duì)富人購(gòu)買更多的商品減稅來(lái)實(shí)現(xiàn)的。
一個(gè)簡(jiǎn)單的例子是，如果我們將優(yōu)質(zhì)葡萄酒的關(guān)稅降低2%，而標(biāo)準(zhǔn)啤酒的關(guān)稅僅降低1%。在你的例子中，你的一品脫啤酒的價(jià)格會(huì)保持不變，但你朋友的葡萄酒的價(jià)格會(huì)比你的啤酒下跌得更多，即使他更富有。
汽油和柴油是富人比窮人花費(fèi)更多的東西。
更為中性的減稅應(yīng)該是像增值稅或國(guó)民保險(xiǎn)這樣的普遍減稅。也就是每個(gè)人都在爭(zhēng)論的事情。
而累進(jìn)削減是削減那些會(huì)不成比例地影響窮人的東西，比如食品價(jià)格或公共汽車票價(jià)。

je97
Poorer people do however consume a greater proportion of their incomes than richer people, they keep much less of it saved away for example. Cutting fuel duty is good at reducing the cost of the consumable goods that everybody needs. It's a good idea for everybody imho, besides the green lobby of course.

然而，窮人的消費(fèi)占收入的比例確實(shí)比富人高，比如，他們儲(chǔ)蓄的收入要少得多。削減燃油稅有助于降低每個(gè)人都需要的消費(fèi)品的成本。這對(duì)每個(gè)人來(lái)說(shuō)都是一個(gè)好主意，當(dāng)然，除了綠色游說(shuō)。

eairy
Whenever the subject of income tax banding comes up, we are told that higher earners ought to pay higher rates because the extra money has less value to a higher earner compared to a lower earner.
We can apply that principle here. Petrol and diesel are essential for a lot of lower paid people and while the cut might be numerically larger for a higher earner, the value is much greater for the lower paid.

每當(dāng)所得稅分級(jí)的話題出現(xiàn)時(shí)，我們都被告知，高收入者應(yīng)該支付更高的稅率，因?yàn)榕c低收入者相比，額外的錢對(duì)高收入者的價(jià)值更小。
我們可以在這里應(yīng)用這個(gè)原則。汽油和柴油對(duì)許多低收入人群來(lái)說(shuō)是必不可少的，雖然對(duì)高收入者的削減幅度可能更大，但對(duì)低收入者的價(jià)值要大得多。

Taxington
The problem in the case of Fuel duty cuts is the poorest don't benift at all, the poorest spend zero on petrol.
Though yeah you have a point, the biggest winners in value are probably middle income rural people who rely on their car.

燃油稅削減的問(wèn)題在于最窮的人根本沒(méi)有受益，最窮的人一分錢也不會(huì)花在汽油上。
雖然你說(shuō)得有道理，但價(jià)值上最大的贏家可能是依賴汽車的中等收入農(nóng)村人口。

ITMidgetfully
The wealthy have Tesla’s and Taycans.
It’s the poor who have older less efficient cars and they will be hit by a fuel duty increase.
Especially as they double tax fuel (you pay vat on the fuel duty)

富人有特斯拉和Taycan。（譯注：電動(dòng)車）
窮人的車?yán)吓f，效率低，他們將受到燃油稅增加的打擊。
特別是他們對(duì)燃料征收雙重稅（你要在燃油稅上支付增值稅）

EeveesGalore
Lots of the wealthy are also buying massive BMW X5s, Range Rovers, Audi Q7s and the like, and there's no reason for it other than it's what they're used to. Better to discourage the sales of these as whatever is sold new eventually becomes the second hand cars that less wealthy people buy.
Old smaller cars are not much less efficient than newer ones in the same class and are definitely more efficient than newer big cars.

許多富人也在購(gòu)買大量的寶馬X5、路虎攬勝、奧迪Q7等車，沒(méi)有別的原因，就是他們習(xí)慣開(kāi)這些。最好是阻止這些汽車的銷售，因?yàn)椴还苜u的是什么新車，最終都會(huì)變成不那么富有的人買的二手車。
舊的小型汽車并不比同級(jí)別的新汽車效率低多少，而且肯定比新的大型汽車效率更高。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Prestigious_Risk7610
I really dislike the regressive/progressive terminology. It purely exists to shape the readers opinions.
When people use progressive and regressive they are really making an argument dressed up in the emotive language of progressivism.

我真的不喜歡這種倒退/進(jìn)步的術(shù)語(yǔ)。它的存在純粹是為了塑造讀者的觀點(diǎn)。
當(dāng)人們使用進(jìn)步和倒退時(shí)，他們實(shí)際上是在用進(jìn)步主義的感性語(yǔ)言來(lái)進(jìn)行爭(zhēng)論。

tmstms
I think this is a bit of a non-argument.
There are LOTS of things where if you spend more, you save more. Almost all supermarket and retailer reward schemes work like, and so do, say, savings accounts.
Almost all taxes on consumption will likewise benefit you if you spend more.
But saving ￡22 a year (the article's figures) if you are poor matters FAR more than saving ￡60 or even ￡600 a year if you are rich.
The writer's not poor, methinks.

我認(rèn)為這是沒(méi)有爭(zhēng)議的。
在很多事情上，如果你花得多，你就省得多。幾乎所有超市和零售商的減稅計(jì)劃都像，打個(gè)比方，像儲(chǔ)蓄賬戶一樣運(yùn)作。
如果你花得更多，幾乎所有的消費(fèi)稅都會(huì)對(duì)你有利。
但是，如果你是窮人，每年節(jié)省22英鎊（文章里的數(shù)據(jù)）比如果你是富人，每年節(jié)省60英鎊甚至600英鎊要重要得多。
我想這位作者并不窮。

Lanky_Giraffe
The point is that there's a received wisdom that rich actually consume less fuel than the poor (because of WFH, electric vehicles, shorter commutes, better access to transit, office jobs that come with showers, etc).
It's completely untrue.

問(wèn)題的關(guān)鍵是，有一種公認(rèn)的觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為，富人實(shí)際上比窮人消耗更少的燃料（因?yàn)樵诩肄k公、電動(dòng)汽車、更短的通勤時(shí)間、更好的交通工具、帶淋浴的辦公室工作等等）。
完全不是這么回事。

Tmstms
Yes, again, I think people are arguing about two different things and one matters more to the rich and one matters more to the poor.
The rich likely consume more fuel because they can. If they want to go somewhere, they will never think Can I afford the petrol? So their conception of leisure might be geographically more wide-ranging than that of the poor (just as they will fly more, go on more foreign holidays etc). So in those arithmetical terms, the rich benefit more from cheaper fuel than the poor.
But at the level of the essential journey, paying 5p per litre for that benefits the poor more.

是的，我認(rèn)為人們?cè)跔?zhēng)論兩件不同的事情，一件對(duì)富人更重要，另一件對(duì)窮人更重要。
富人可能會(huì)消耗更多的燃料，因?yàn)樗麄冇羞@個(gè)能力。如果他們想去某個(gè)地方，他們永遠(yuǎn)不會(huì)考慮我能負(fù)擔(dān)得起汽油嗎？因此，他們的休閑概念在地理上可能比窮人的更廣泛（就像他們會(huì)更多地坐飛機(jī)，更多地去國(guó)外度假等等）。所以在這些算術(shù)術(shù)語(yǔ)中，富人比窮人從更便宜的燃料中獲益了更多。
但在必要旅程的層面上，為每升汽油少支付5便士對(duì)窮人更有利。

Puzzleheaded_Oil1745
Good, the taxes are already utterly outrageous already against mid to high earners.

很好，針對(duì)中高收入者的稅收已經(jīng)非常離譜了。

AoyagiAichou
Honestly, is there any tax or tax-adjacent policy in the UK that doesn't benefit the wealthy?

老實(shí)說(shuō)，英國(guó)有什么稅收或稅收相關(guān)政策對(duì)富人不利嗎？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明出處

Fearless-Director210
The article is a joke. Of course richer people tend to have larger and more expensive cars that use more fuel but it should be worded to say 'people who use more fuel will save more than those who use less fuel'.
You can literally apply that logic to any good or service where a percentage based cut/sale is introduced but that doesn't mean its 'for the rich'.
The bigger problem here is that as a country we are much more skint than we accept as a population and we do not need or want to see any more cuts to public services. So why introduce a freeze that on average will only help a lower earner to the tune of ￡22 quid a year and a higher earner ￡77 or whatever it is.
They'd do better to just say we aren't freezing fuel duty because we don't think the savings to each member of the population are worth it and we are going to use the ￡27BILLION to pay for x, y and z.
People don't like paying taxes obviously and a lot of people are pretty ignorant but i genuinely believe if you can tell and show people 'yes we charged you this, but it pays for this and this' than we are much more accepting and even agreeable to it.
Stick my council tax up and i don't notice anything different in the community - Unhappy. Build new social housing, schools and drs. then fine i'm happy to pay

這篇文章就是個(gè)笑話。當(dāng)然，富人往往擁有更大、更昂貴的汽車，這些汽車使用更多的燃料，但應(yīng)該這樣說(shuō)：“使用更多燃料的人將比使用更少燃料的人節(jié)省更多的錢”。
你可以將這種邏輯應(yīng)用到任何商品或服務(wù)中，其中引入了基于百分比的削減/銷售，但這并不意味著它是“為富人服務(wù)的”。
這里更大的問(wèn)題在于，作為一個(gè)國(guó)家，我們比我們所接受的要窮得多，我們不需要也不希望看到更多的公共服務(wù)削減。那么，為什么要實(shí)行平均每年只能幫助低收入者節(jié)省22英鎊、高收入者節(jié)省77英鎊或其他多少英鎊的凍結(jié)政策呢？
他們最好說(shuō)我們沒(méi)有凍結(jié)燃油稅，因?yàn)槲覀冋J(rèn)為節(jié)省下來(lái)的錢對(duì)每個(gè)人來(lái)說(shuō)都不值得，我們將用這個(gè)270億英鎊來(lái)支付X、Y和Z。
人們顯然不喜歡納稅，很多人都很無(wú)知，但我真的相信，如果你能告訴人們“是的，我們收了你這個(gè)錢，但它用來(lái)支付了這個(gè)和那個(gè)”，我們就會(huì)更接受甚至更贊同它。
提高我的市政稅，但我沒(méi)有注意到社區(qū)有什么變化——我會(huì)不高興。建造新的社會(huì)住房、學(xué)校和醫(yī)生。那好吧，我很樂(lè)意交錢