聯(lián)合工會呼吁對超級富豪征收1%的財(cái)富稅,為英國公共部門加薪提供資金
Unite calls for 1% wealth tax on super-rich to fund UK public sector pay rises譯文簡介
“通過新自由主義和緊縮政策,財(cái)富有了巨大的向上轉(zhuǎn)移,但顯然反過來是不可能的??”——《衛(wèi)報(bào)》報(bào)道。
正文翻譯
Unite calls for 1% wealth tax on super-rich to fund UK public sector pay rises
聯(lián)合工會呼吁對超級富豪征收1%的財(cái)富稅,為英國公共部門加薪提供資金
聯(lián)合工會呼吁對超級富豪征收1%的財(cái)富稅,為英國公共部門加薪提供資金
(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,英國聯(lián)合工會秘書長莎倫·格雷厄姆帶領(lǐng)鋼鐵工人走上白廳,要求為該行業(yè)提供更多支持。她說,英國經(jīng)濟(jì)已經(jīng)崩潰。)
新聞:
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.
英國第二大工會呼吁新工黨政府對超級富豪的資產(chǎn)征收1%的緊急財(cái)富稅,以支付公共部門員工10%的加薪,并填補(bǔ)10萬多個國家醫(yī)療體系職位空缺。
英國第二大工會呼吁新工黨政府對超級富豪的資產(chǎn)征收1%的緊急財(cái)富稅,以支付公共部門員工10%的加薪,并填補(bǔ)10萬多個國家醫(yī)療體系職位空缺。
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.
工會代表大會將于下月在布萊頓召開,聯(lián)合工會的這一要求是向工會代表大會提出的幾項(xiàng)動議之一,這將暴露出基爾·斯塔默政府與工會運(yùn)動部分之間的緊張關(guān)系。10月30日,瑞秋·里夫斯正在準(zhǔn)備她作為財(cái)政大臣的第一份預(yù)算。
工會代表大會將于下月在布萊頓召開,聯(lián)合工會的這一要求是向工會代表大會提出的幾項(xiàng)動議之一,這將暴露出基爾·斯塔默政府與工會運(yùn)動部分之間的緊張關(guān)系。10月30日,瑞秋·里夫斯正在準(zhǔn)備她作為財(cái)政大臣的第一份預(yù)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.
工黨議員和部長們認(rèn)為,工會代表大會可能標(biāo)志著許多工會和工黨之間有效休戰(zhàn)的時刻——這有助于斯塔默的大選競選——可能開始破裂,因?yàn)槭紫嗪屠锓蛩辜颖吨铝τ谪?cái)政責(zé)任,并強(qiáng)調(diào)如果經(jīng)濟(jì)要恢復(fù)健康,就必須做出艱難的選擇。
工黨議員和部長們認(rèn)為,工會代表大會可能標(biāo)志著許多工會和工黨之間有效休戰(zhàn)的時刻——這有助于斯塔默的大選競選——可能開始破裂,因?yàn)槭紫嗪屠锓蛩辜颖吨铝τ谪?cái)政責(zé)任,并強(qiáng)調(diào)如果經(jīng)濟(jì)要恢復(fù)健康,就必須做出艱難的選擇。
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.
其他主要工會正準(zhǔn)備向工黨施壓,要求其進(jìn)一步改變政策,包括放棄兩個孩子的福利上限,斯塔默迄今一直反對這一政策,以及撤銷最近終止數(shù)百萬養(yǎng)老金領(lǐng)取者冬季燃料補(bǔ)貼的決定,這一決定在工黨后座議員中引起了嚴(yán)重反彈。
其他主要工會正準(zhǔn)備向工黨施壓,要求其進(jìn)一步改變政策,包括放棄兩個孩子的福利上限,斯塔默迄今一直反對這一政策,以及撤銷最近終止數(shù)百萬養(yǎng)老金領(lǐng)取者冬季燃料補(bǔ)貼的決定,這一決定在工黨后座議員中引起了嚴(yán)重反彈。
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.
據(jù)了解,里夫斯正在考慮在預(yù)算中增加資本利得稅和遺產(chǎn)稅,而聯(lián)合工會向工會大會提交的動議則更進(jìn)一步,稱地方當(dāng)局面臨財(cái)政危機(jī),迫切需要的公共投資不能等到未來某個不確定的時間點(diǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長才實(shí)現(xiàn)。
據(jù)了解,里夫斯正在考慮在預(yù)算中增加資本利得稅和遺產(chǎn)稅,而聯(lián)合工會向工會大會提交的動議則更進(jìn)一步,稱地方當(dāng)局面臨財(cái)政危機(jī),迫切需要的公共投資不能等到未來某個不確定的時間點(diǎn)經(jīng)濟(jì)增長才實(shí)現(xiàn)。
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.
聯(lián)合工會的計(jì)劃是對價值超過400萬英鎊的資產(chǎn)征收1%的稅,它表示,這將每年籌集250億英鎊,為公共服務(wù)投資提供資金,避免回到緊縮狀態(tài)。根據(jù)該計(jì)劃,資產(chǎn)價值600萬英鎊的人將對超過400萬英鎊的200萬英鎊征收1%的稅。這些資產(chǎn)將包括房產(chǎn)、股票和銀行賬戶,但不包括抵押房產(chǎn)。
聯(lián)合工會的計(jì)劃是對價值超過400萬英鎊的資產(chǎn)征收1%的稅,它表示,這將每年籌集250億英鎊,為公共服務(wù)投資提供資金,避免回到緊縮狀態(tài)。根據(jù)該計(jì)劃,資產(chǎn)價值600萬英鎊的人將對超過400萬英鎊的200萬英鎊征收1%的稅。這些資產(chǎn)將包括房產(chǎn)、股票和銀行賬戶,但不包括抵押房產(chǎn)。
Unite points to research showing that the richest 50 families in the UK now have assets worth nearly £500bn.
聯(lián)合工會指出,研究顯示,英國最富有的50個家庭目前擁有近5000億英鎊的資產(chǎn)。
聯(lián)合工會指出,研究顯示,英國最富有的50個家庭目前擁有近5000億英鎊的資產(chǎn)。
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.
聯(lián)合工會的秘書長沙倫·格雷厄姆說:“聯(lián)合工會就經(jīng)濟(jì)問題向英國職工大會提出的決議是實(shí)事求是的。英國經(jīng)濟(jì)已經(jīng)崩潰。
聯(lián)合工會的秘書長沙倫·格雷厄姆說:“聯(lián)合工會就經(jīng)濟(jì)問題向英國職工大會提出的決議是實(shí)事求是的。英國經(jīng)濟(jì)已經(jīng)崩潰。
“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.
“英國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)了世界上第一次工業(yè)革命。但由于幾十年來在制造業(yè)和國家基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施方面的投資不足,我們現(xiàn)在在新技術(shù)時代和向凈零排放的過渡中嚴(yán)重落后于其他國家。
“英國領(lǐng)導(dǎo)了世界上第一次工業(yè)革命。但由于幾十年來在制造業(yè)和國家基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施方面的投資不足,我們現(xiàn)在在新技術(shù)時代和向凈零排放的過渡中嚴(yán)重落后于其他國家。
“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.”
“我們需要對我們殘缺的公共服務(wù)和工業(yè)進(jìn)行認(rèn)真的投資,以確保英國工人和他們的社區(qū)有一個繁榮的未來。我們無法通過等待增長來獲得所需的資金?!?/b>
“我們需要對我們殘缺的公共服務(wù)和工業(yè)進(jìn)行認(rèn)真的投資,以確保英國工人和他們的社區(qū)有一個繁榮的未來。我們無法通過等待增長來獲得所需的資金?!?/b>
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.
聯(lián)合工會在2019年是工黨的一大捐助者,但沒有為今年的選舉做出貢獻(xiàn),稱選舉宣言在保護(hù)石油和天然氣行業(yè)工人的權(quán)利和就業(yè)方面做得不夠。
聯(lián)合工會在2019年是工黨的一大捐助者,但沒有為今年的選舉做出貢獻(xiàn),稱選舉宣言在保護(hù)石油和天然氣行業(yè)工人的權(quán)利和就業(yè)方面做得不夠。
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.
英國運(yùn)輸業(yè)工會也向大會提交了一份動議,呼吁征收財(cái)富稅,為公共投資提供資金,并放棄它所稱的“不必要的限制性和武斷的財(cái)政規(guī)則”,這些規(guī)則限制了政府的借貸能力。
英國運(yùn)輸業(yè)工會也向大會提交了一份動議,呼吁征收財(cái)富稅,為公共投資提供資金,并放棄它所稱的“不必要的限制性和武斷的財(cái)政規(guī)則”,這些規(guī)則限制了政府的借貸能力。
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”.
來自商店工人工會Usdaw的一項(xiàng)動議呼吁終止兩個孩子的福利上限,來自PCS公務(wù)員工會的一項(xiàng)修正案呼吁工會代表大會“反對削減冬季燃料補(bǔ)貼”,并“要求對公司和超級富豪適當(dāng)征稅,以資助這項(xiàng)動議中確定的社會保障改善”。
來自商店工人工會Usdaw的一項(xiàng)動議呼吁終止兩個孩子的福利上限,來自PCS公務(wù)員工會的一項(xiàng)修正案呼吁工會代表大會“反對削減冬季燃料補(bǔ)貼”,并“要求對公司和超級富豪適當(dāng)征稅,以資助這項(xiàng)動議中確定的社會保障改善”。
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.
預(yù)計(jì)英國工會代表大會還將敦促“薪酬恢復(fù)”,以彌補(bǔ)公共部門工人十年來的實(shí)際工資削減。
預(yù)計(jì)英國工會代表大會還將敦促“薪酬恢復(fù)”,以彌補(bǔ)公共部門工人十年來的實(shí)際工資削減。
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.
這些要求將進(jìn)一步加劇工黨與其工會支持者之間的緊張關(guān)系。此前,斯塔默領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的政府與從醫(yī)療保健到鐵路等行業(yè)的罷工工人達(dá)成了一系列薪資協(xié)議。
這些要求將進(jìn)一步加劇工黨與其工會支持者之間的緊張關(guān)系。此前,斯塔默領(lǐng)導(dǎo)的政府與從醫(yī)療保健到鐵路等行業(yè)的罷工工人達(dá)成了一系列薪資協(xié)議。
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 4 )
收藏
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??
為什么這些評論里的人如此反對這個?通過新自由主義和緊縮政策,財(cái)富有了巨大的向上轉(zhuǎn)移,但顯然反過來是不可能的??
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。超級富豪比以往任何時候都更富有,而其他所有人都更窮,經(jīng)濟(jì)增長也非常緩慢。不需要天才就能把這些點(diǎn)連起來——錢不再在經(jīng)濟(jì)中流動了。
在財(cái)富不平等問題得到解決之前,我們不會看到這種下降趨勢的逆轉(zhuǎn),而我認(rèn)為沒有辦法在不向其征稅的情況下做到這一點(diǎn)。
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.
甚至比稅收(我百分之百同意我們需要稅收)更重要的是,我們需要找到一種文化轉(zhuǎn)變的方法,讓人們不贊成囤積數(shù)十億美元,而不是渴望這樣做。
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)
這就是為什么我一有機(jī)會就指出來,呵呵。令人震驚的是,很多人甚至沒有看到問題是什么。(我的意思是,當(dāng)你看到像默多克這樣的人如何努力地將人們的關(guān)注點(diǎn)指向移民時,這并不那么令人震驚。)
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.
我認(rèn)為這是因?yàn)槟切┍г垢蝗硕诜e財(cái)富的人沒有區(qū)分他們和那些真正把錢正確地投資到行業(yè)和市場上,用他們的錢做點(diǎn)什么,通過真正的慈善事業(yè)為社會做貢獻(xiàn)的人。
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.
其他人并不是更窮。當(dāng)然,具體情況具體分析,但總的來說,人們比50年、30年、20年前富裕得多。
在市場的推動下,技術(shù)讓我們變得更加富有。想想看,在1994年,甚至是2004年,擁有世界上所有的音樂需要花費(fèi)多少錢,那將是數(shù)百萬,而今天大約是每月10英鎊。汽車的效率和安全性大大提高。選擇一些領(lǐng)域,從健康到教練,我們有比過去更好的東西,而且可以廣泛使用。1994年,很少有人有移動電話或互聯(lián)網(wǎng)接入,今天無家可歸的人都有智能手機(jī)可以隨時上網(wǎng)。
表現(xiàn)不佳的是那些在很大程度上受到法律限制的領(lǐng)域。隨著人口的增長,很難獲得許可的住房也受到了限制。
你是愿意更窮,不平等更少,還是更富,但不平等更嚴(yán)重?從經(jīng)濟(jì)角度來看,這些都是我們正在考慮的權(quán)衡。
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.
這不是我們正在面對的選擇。從20世紀(jì)末到現(xiàn)在,大多數(shù)人得到的蛋糕越來越小。你指出,盡管這種情況一直在發(fā)生,但蛋糕變大的速度快于不平等減少的速度,所以人們的生活總體上變得更好了。
看看增長統(tǒng)計(jì)數(shù)據(jù),這種情況已不再發(fā)生。問題在于經(jīng)濟(jì)主要是由普通人驅(qū)動的。當(dāng)大多數(shù)人拿到錢的時候,他們會花掉它,然后它就會在經(jīng)濟(jì)中流動。但超級富豪不這樣做,他們不可能花光所有的錢,所以他們傾向于獲得更多的資產(chǎn),以積累更多的財(cái)富。超級富豪擁有的錢越多,經(jīng)濟(jì)中的流通就越少。
隨著不平等加劇,生產(chǎn)率下降,增長放緩,不平等加速惡化。最終,你會到達(dá)一個臨界點(diǎn),即蛋糕的增長不足以抵消每個人份額減少的速度。這就是我們現(xiàn)在所看到的。人們的生活越來越糟??纯次覀冇卸嗌偈称枫y行,人們無法取暖,國家醫(yī)療體系令人窒息。我們不擁有我們的鐵路,我們的能源,我們的水,我們的房子。
你所描述的20世紀(jì)的增長是驚人的,我相信這是因?yàn)橘Y本主義,我并不反對資本主義。我只是認(rèn)識到,它之所以如此有效,是因?yàn)槟菚r財(cái)富不平等的程度比現(xiàn)在小得多,我希望看到它減少到那些水平。
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.
這是不可能的,因?yàn)槲覀兩钤谝粋€全球化的經(jīng)濟(jì)中,富人可以隨心所欲地四處尋找有利的司法管轄區(qū)。如果英國成為一個不那么有利的司法管轄區(qū),那么他們可以簡單地將資金轉(zhuǎn)移到另一個國家,這意味著在英國的投資減少。
我不會說這是一個特別理想的情況,但鑒于沒有人建議顛覆整個全球經(jīng)濟(jì),這就是我們必須處理的情況。
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?
新自由主義資本主義建立在這樣一種理念之上,即對富人施加盡可能少的限制,因?yàn)樨?cái)富最終會涓滴而下。這顯然不會發(fā)生。當(dāng)我們絕大多數(shù)人發(fā)現(xiàn)自己的實(shí)際收入停滯不前或下降時,超級富豪們卻變得更加富有。
因此,如果財(cái)富不能通過涓滴效應(yīng)來確保人們擁有高質(zhì)量的生活,如果我們不能提高稅收來確保人們擁有高質(zhì)量的生活,那么我們到底要做什么呢?袖手旁觀,接受我們的生活慢慢變得更糟,盡管人類的生產(chǎn)力達(dá)到了有史以來的最高水平嗎?
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.
令人沮喪的現(xiàn)實(shí)是,我覺得我們完蛋了。英國在全球經(jīng)濟(jì)中的重要性正在下降,沒有切實(shí)可行的辦法來改變這一點(diǎn)。
如果不把自己與全球經(jīng)濟(jì)的大片區(qū)域隔離開來,我們就很難控制流入或流出這個國家的資金。
但如果我們咬緊牙關(guān),拒絕與任何不遵守我們稅收制度的國家打交道,那么實(shí)際的現(xiàn)實(shí)是,在英國做生意的人會更少。這將加速我們的衰落。
這不是特別令人高興的消息,但這就是我們的處境。
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?yàn)槌壐缓劳羞x擇權(quán)。選擇在世界上幾乎任何地方創(chuàng)建公司,并有足夠的資源咨詢稅務(wù)會計(jì)師和律師,以找到漏洞,以避免支付更多的稅。
這通常意味著超級富豪將資金從征收財(cái)富稅的國家轉(zhuǎn)移到其他地方。
這是否會導(dǎo)致稅收的凈收益或損失是另一個問題。我不能肯定地說,但不難想象,從億萬富翁那里損失0.1%比從百萬富翁那里獲得1%更重要(舉個例子)。
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.
國家作為資本管理委員會的職能意味著它只不過是一個財(cái)閥的機(jī)構(gòu),所以“向富人征稅”只是意味著利用國家從富人手中奪走財(cái)富,并將其放在超級富豪手中。
如果工會不是完全無能,他們就會要求更高的工資和更多的就業(yè)機(jī)會,僅此而已。重點(diǎn)應(yīng)該是通過提高生產(chǎn)率迫使資本家進(jìn)行極端的利潤競爭,而不是乞求他們施舍小恩小惠。其他的我們可以而且應(yīng)該在國家監(jiān)管之外自己實(shí)現(xiàn)。
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.
必須對超級富豪征稅,否則這行不通。低端百萬富翁并不是超級富豪。那些數(shù)百萬/億萬富翁才是更大的問題。
原創(chuàng)翻譯:龍騰網(wǎng) http://top-shui.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
It’s a tax on wealth not income
這是對財(cái)富而不是收入征稅
It's not exactly a new thing - both Spain and Norway have similar wealth taxes.
這并不是什么新鮮事——西班牙和挪威都有類似的財(cái)富稅。