我的中國朋友從中國社交媒體上看到了這個消息，然后轉(zhuǎn)發(fā)了。據(jù)中國人說，這條消息已經(jīng)在美國流傳開來
Forwarded by my China friend who got it off Chinese social media. According to the Chinese, this has been making the rounds stateside.
譯文簡介
網(wǎng)友：這是寡頭資本主義的必然后果，美國人卻沒有意識到。體制沒有改變，但美國社會的財富分配狀態(tài)已不同于200多年前的美國。
正文翻譯
圖
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 26 )
收藏
This is an inevitable consequence of oligarchic capitalism, and Americans just don't realize it. The system has not changed, but the state of wealth distribution in American society today is not what it was in the United States more than 200 years ago.
這是寡頭資本主義的必然后果，美國人卻沒有意識到。體制沒有改變，但美國社會的財富分配狀態(tài)已不同于200多年前的美國。
Nonetheless, the standard of living is still higher today for the average American, illegal immigrants line up to work in the US by the hundred thousands.
盡管如此，今天普通美國人的生活水平仍然較高，成千上萬的非法移民排隊在美國工作。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Nope standard of living is not higher.
不，生活水平并沒有提高。
I mean, the Republicans always campaign on lowering taxes. The Democrats campaign on only taxing the rich. And for the average American, making $60k, total taxes (state and federal) is probably going to be closer to 20%. Even in California, if you’re making $350k, total effective tax rate will be 39.33%.
我的意思是，共和黨人總是以降低稅收為競選綱領(lǐng)。而民主黨人則只針對富人征稅。對于年收入6萬美元的普通美國人來說，總稅率（州稅和聯(lián)邦稅）可能接近20%。即便在加利福尼亞，如果你的收入是35萬美元，總有效稅率將是39.33%。
You only include income taxes, but we pay other taxes like sales and use tax, property tax, etc. Since those are typically a flat rate, burden is higher for low income American. 40% total tax in the meme is not that far fetch.
你只計算了所得稅，但我們還需繳納銷售稅、使用稅、財產(chǎn)稅等。由于這些通常是固定稅率，低收入美國人的負擔更重。圖片中的40%總稅率并非夸張。
American taxes are on the low side compared to the developing world. We collect 27% of taxes as GDP. This implies the average person pays around this much in total taxes (lines up with my personal spending).
與發(fā)展中國家相比，美國的稅率較低。我們的稅收占GDP的27%。這意味著平均每個人的總稅負大約是這么多（與我個人的開支相符）。
If I am reading it correctly, data came from federal /national government. Not really a true representation, it does not include taxes (income, sales tax, other taxes) from state and local government. In addition, don't include tariffs, which is also taxes.
如果我理解正確的話，數(shù)據(jù)來自聯(lián)邦/國家政府。這并非真實的代表，它沒有包括州和地方政府的稅收（所得稅、銷售稅、其他稅種）。此外，還沒有包括關(guān)稅，這也是稅收。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Is that why your deficit spending in 2023 is >6% of GDP? Not everyone can afford that in a non-recession year or crisis period. The Federal Budget in Fiscal Year 2023: An Infographic | Congressional Budget Office (cbo.gov)
這就是為什么你們2023年的赤字支出超過GDP的6%嗎？不是每個人都能在非衰退年份或危機時期負擔得起。2023財年聯(lián)邦預算：信息圖表來自國會預算辦公室
Pretty much. The feds need to do a combination of the following: raise taxes and cut spending. Or invent a Time Machine, convince Al Gore to use Clinton’s popularity to get elected, and keep Clinton’s surplus (ie not cut taxes and invade two countries).
基本如此。聯(lián)邦政府需要做的是：提高稅收和削減開支。或者發(fā)明時間機器，說服阿爾·戈爾利用克林頓的人氣當選，并保持克林頓的盈余（即不減稅和入侵兩個國家）。
I'm confused. Are you saying Al Gore didn't run for president?
我很困惑。你是說阿爾·戈爾沒有競選總統(tǒng)嗎？
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
He did. But a crucial mistake of his campaign was that he tried his hardest to distance himself from Clinton.
他確實競選過。但他競選的一個關(guān)鍵錯誤是他極力與克林頓保持距離。
Really? I don't remember that. Pretty strange considering he served as VP to Clinton for 8 years..
真的嗎？我不記得了。考慮到他曾作為副總統(tǒng)在克林頓手下服務(wù)了8年，這很奇怪。
Gore should’ve had Bill Clinton campaign extensively for him. However, Gore wanted to distance himself from Bill because of the Lewinsky scandal, when in all actuality, the public had long stopped caring about it.
戈爾應該讓比爾·克林頓為他廣泛地助選。然而，由于萊溫斯基丑聞，戈爾想與比爾保持距離，實際上，公眾早就不再關(guān)心這件事了。
All I can remember from that time was Al Gore's claim that he invented the internet And the Brooks Brothers riot
我能記得的就是阿爾·戈爾聲稱他發(fā)明了互聯(lián)網(wǎng)和布魯克斯兄弟騷亂
Europeans have far better social welfare and public service.
歐洲人的社會福利和公共服務(wù)要好得多。
Also worth to note that the countries being on the high end are among the countries often measured to be the best countries to live in.
同樣值得注意的是，處于高端的國家常常被評為最宜居的國家之一。
Rep just want the rich to avoid taxes.
共和黨只想讓富人逃稅。
DER UNIPARTY LOVES THE SMARTPHONE LEMMINGS AND TRUMP IS THE THREAT
統(tǒng)一黨愛智能手機的小白鼠，而特朗普是威脅
Democracy!
民主！
Yup, and a better life to go with it.
是的，還有更好的生活。
That's just the antidepressant
那只是抗抑郁藥
Not here.
這里不是。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Korea is a very stressful country, they just under report mental health issues. High suicide rate, low birth rate, long study and work hours…
韓國是一個壓力很大的國家，他們只是少報了心理健康問題。高自殺率，低出生率，長時間學習和工作…
This doesn’t take away the irony of the image, but in context, the revolutionary war had other causes than taxes.
這并不能消除圖片的諷刺意味，但從上下文來看，革命戰(zhàn)爭的原因不僅僅是稅收。
What lineup is that?
那是什么陣容？
I see whoever made this and shared this have no clue that they were literally “no taxation without representation” and the rate of tax was hardly a part of it
我看到制作和分享這個的人根本不知道他們字面上是“沒有代表權(quán)就沒有納稅”，而稅率幾乎不是其中的一部分
Perhaps. But I'd take 2% tax rate over 40% any day, representation be damned.
也許吧。但我寧愿選擇2%的稅率而不是40%，不管有沒有代表權(quán)。
Even 2% tax without electricity, running water, internet, modern medicine and modern transport, like 200 years ago? You don’t know what you are talking about.
即使是2%的稅率，沒有電、自來水、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)、現(xiàn)代醫(yī)療和現(xiàn)代交通，就像200年前一樣？你根本不知道你在說什么。
Taxes don’t pay utilities. You pay for your electricity, water, internet, health insurance, and your own car and gas. Taxes go to government institutions, which provide NONE of the above. You’re confounding taxes with the scientific progress men have made in the last 200 years, highly illogical.
稅收不支付公用事業(yè)費。你支付自己的電費、水費、互聯(lián)網(wǎng)費、健康保險以及你自己的汽車和汽油費。稅收流向政府機構(gòu)，這些機構(gòu)不提供上述任何服務(wù)。你把稅收與過去200年人類科學進步混為一談，非常不合邏輯。
So you would rather pay 2% tax living 200 years ago, coz you said you prefer 2% tax anytime, anytime till 1000 years ago?
所以你寧愿生活在200年前支付2%的稅，因為你說你隨時都喜歡2%的稅率，一直到1000年前？
Was it really 2% in 1775? I thought it was much more.
1775年真的只有2%嗎？我以為會更多。
They actually against taxation without representation in the first picture, not really the rate of it.
他們實際上反對第一張圖片中沒有代表權(quán)的征稅，而不是稅率。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
A lot of ppl pay tax but has no rights to vote… is that also lack of representation
很多人交稅但沒有投票權(quán)……這也是缺乏代表性嗎？
Man 40% tax would be so neat. I think in Germany, it's around 45%.
哥們，40%的稅率真的很好了。我認為在德國，大約是45%。
Like frogs in Heinzmann’s paradigm within their politicians’ world of Leibniz’s theodicy.
就像在萊布尼茨神正論的世界里，海因茨曼范例中的青蛙。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
Demo(n)crazy is the biggest scam out there…
民主瘋狂是最大的騙局……
tax counts nothing, we should only count the real purchase ability.
稅什么的不重要，我們應該只計算真正的購買能力。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://www.top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
And like most people that don’t know what they are talking about…. It wasn’t the amount of tax….. it was WHO was levying the tax.
就像大多數(shù)不知道自己在說什么的人一樣……問題不在于稅收的數(shù)量……而在于是誰在征稅。