2015年英语四级阅读最新材料：关于资本税的零和争论

　　Finance and Economics;财经;

　　Free exchange; 自由兑换;

　　Zero-sum debate; 零和争论;

　　Economists are rethinking the view that capital should not betaxed;

　　经济学家正重新考虑是否要推翻不该对资本征税的观点。

　　Executives thunder that America's corporate-tax rates are toblame for economic weakness. Mitt Romney's campaign accuses Barack Obama of waging a “waron capital”. In fact, America's taxation of capital is more murky than confiscatory. At 39.2% (including state and local tax) its top corporate rate is the rich world's highest but loopholes meanmost companies end up paying 27.6%, similar to Britain's effective rate of 27.4% and belowGermany's 31.6%. America's tax rate on capital gains, at 15%, is lower than in many othercountries. And if Mr Romney is the more ardent defender of capital, both men agree on the needfor reforms. This is less a battle, more a skirmish.

　　行政当局愤怒指出美国经济疲软应归咎于公司企业所得税率。米特·罗姆尼发起一场运动指责奥巴马掀起了“对资本的战争”。事实上，美国的资本税与其用于没收充公，不如说其使用含混不明。其最高企业所得税税率高达39.2%(包括州政府和当地政府所征税收)，居发达国家之首，不过由于存在漏洞，大多数公司最终支付的税率为27.6%，接近于英国的实际税率27.4%，低于德国的实际税率31.6%。美国的资本利得税税率为15%，比很多国家都要低。尽管罗姆尼更热衷于维护资本，他和奥巴马都认为有必要进行改革。这不像一场战争，反而只是一场小争论罢了。

　　The more interesting fight is going on within economics. For a generation, the profession's messageon capital taxes has been simple: the lower the better. Most economists would prefer no tax oncapital income at all. This seeming fanaticism is rooted in sensible models, developed in the 1970sand 1980s and built on a pleasing simplicity. Taxation inevitably involves trade-offs. Governmentstax in order to fund public goods and limit inequality, but taxes are no free lunch. People andbusinesses respond—a tax on carrots, say, reduces carrot consumption—and these responsesdistort the economy and may reduce its potential growth rate.

　　经济学内部发生了更有趣的争执。一代以来，经济学家对于资本税的看法十分简单：税率越低越好。大多数经济学家根本不支持对资本收入征税。这种表面上的狂热植根于一些实用模型，它们于20世纪70年代到80年代发展起来，其基本特征是简洁，因此令人愉悦。税收不可避免地涉及了交换。政府征税是为了提供公共产品和限制收入不公，然而税收并非免费的午餐。个人和企业会提供反响，例如，对胡萝卜征税会减少胡萝卜的消费量，而这些反应使得经济扭曲，并有可能减少经济的潜在增长率。

　　In these models, inequality was seen as a problem of pay differences, best addressed throughtaxes on labour incomes. Taxes on capital were reckoned to have large costs. Capital, or savingsinvested in new production, raises future growth and consumption. If a tax on capital incomediscourages investment, that impact compounds indefinitely into the future. As a result, zero taxon capital income should be preferred, even by individuals who don't earn any such income.Economists became vocal in calling for reduced tax rates, and policymakers responded. Topcapital-income tax rates in America and Britain fell by more than half from the 1950s to the 1980s.There is pressure to go further.

　　在这些模型中，人们认为收入的不一致导致出现了不公正，而解决这个问题的最好方法就是向劳力收入征税。资本税会产生巨额成本。资本，或者投入新生产的储蓄能够在未来带来经济增长和消费。若对资本收入征税会减少投资，其影响将有可能渗入到未来。这么一来，人们更乐于选择对资本收入征收零税收，即使对于那些并没有资本收入的人来说也是如此。经济学家强烈呼吁削减税率，并得到了政策制定者的回应。在20世纪50年代到80年代间，英美两国的最高资本收入税率下降了超过一半。若施加更多压力，还能降得更多。

　　But some economists are questioning the prevailing view, not least because reductions in capital-tax rates appear to have delivered more inequality than growth. In a 2008 paper, Juan CarlosConesa of Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Sagiri Kitao of the University of Southern Californiaand Dirk Krueger of the University of Pennsylvania argued that taxing capital was “not a bad ideaafter all”. Capital markets are imperfect, they observe, and households are unable to insurethemselves against all of life's ups and downs. Taxing away some of the return to capital to providesocial insurance against risks is appropriate.

　　不过一些经济学家正在质疑这种盛行的观点，其理由不仅仅是因为资本税率的减少似乎并未带来多少增长，反而扩大了不公正的发生。在一份2008年发布的论文上，巴塞罗那自治大学的JuanCarlos Conesa， 南加利福尼亚大学的Sagiri Kitao 以及宾夕法尼亚大学的Dirk Krueger争论说，对资本收入“绝不是一个坏主意”。在他们看来，资本市场是不完美的，单个家庭自身无力保证能够有效应对生命中的大起大落。因此通过征税拿走一部分资本收益，用以提供社会保障和抵御风险是合情合理的。

　　That is because the growth costs of capital taxes are overestimated. The old models contend thatcapital supply is highly sensitive to changes in tax policy, and that a zero tax rate is needed toprevent capital from drying up over the long run. This looks unrealistic, the authors reckon. Mostcapital-income taxes are paid by working-age adults saving for retirement, who will continue tosave despite taxes. Stubborn savers make for a stable supply of investment capital, limiting theimpact of taxes on growth. In the authors' estimation, a 36% capital-income tax rate is justified.

　　之所以发生这种情况，是因为资本税收的增长成本被高估了。旧模型坚持认为资本供给对税收政策的变化极其敏感，因此需要实行零税收以防止长期里资本陷入枯竭。作者们认为，这种说法是不切实际的。大多数资本收入税收是由在职成年人支付，用以积蓄养老，即便收税他们仍然会维持这种储蓄。坚定不移的储蓄者保证了投资性资本的稳定供给，这样就限制了税收对于经济增长带来的影响。在作者的预计中，36%的资本收入税率是公正的。

　　In a new NBER working paper, Thomas Piketty of the Paris School of Economics and EmmanuelSaez of the University of California at Berkeley poke different holes in the conventional view. Theold models, they point out, ignore inheritances. In the real world inheritances strongly influenceincome levels, particularly among the very rich. Mr Romney recently reinforced this very point byexhorting students to borrow from parents if necessary. Taxes on wages and salaries areinadequate to the task of limiting inequality because they punish those who owe high incomes togreater ability and effort, rather than to inheritances. Messrs Piketty and Saez also question thescale of the threat to growth. They point to ratios of capital to output, which are surprisingly stableover time despite tax swings. Their model finds that the optimal tax rate on inheritance could be50-60% or more.

　　在一份新的美国国家经济研究局(NBER)的工作报告中，巴黎经济学院的Thomas Piketty 和加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校的Emmanuel Saez 在传统的观点中找到了另外一些漏洞。他们指出，旧模型忽略了遗产的因素。在现实世界里，遗产强烈影响了收入水平，尤其是对于那些巨富来说更是如此。罗姆尼最近强调了这一点，他规劝学生们有必要的话可以向家长借钱。对工钱或薪水征税不足以限制收入不公，因为这些税收对因自身能力和努力工作而获得高收入的人造成了损害，反而放过了因遗产而暴富的人。Messrs Piketty 和Saez同样质疑了经济增长是否真的受到了那么大程度的威胁。他们显示了资本对产量的比率，发现就算税率变动，这一比率却能长期保持平稳，令人惊异。他们的模型发现对遗产征收的最佳税率能达到50%到60%，甚至更多。

　　Inheritance taxes are a minor source of government money, accounting for less than onepercentage point of the 8-9% of GDP in revenues that Messrs Piketty and Saez estimate is raisedby capital taxes. But taxing capital gains or corporate income, which is responsible for much of therest, is also justifiable, they say. The often-fuzzy line between income from capital and labourmeans a large gap in relative tax rates breeds tax avoidance. When wage taxes are high andcapital taxes are low, firms simply shift compensation from salaries to stock options and dividends,cutting revenue without boosting growth. All told, capital-tax rates as high or higher than those onlabour may make sense, they think.

　　遗产税只是政府收入中极小的一个来源，在国内生产总值中占的比例不超过8%到9%，据MessrsPiketty 和Saez预计，征收资本税还可以提高这一收入。他们说，就连对资本增值或者企业所得征税，即资本税包含的另一部分，也是合理的。资本收入和劳力收入之间的界限经常模糊不清，这样在相对税率上产生了很大的差距，容易滋生漏税行为。若工资税高，资本税低，公司会将工资转为股权和红利，以此避免花费，这种行为减少了税收收入，无益于推动经济增长。他们认为，所有证据表明，资本税率同劳力税率一样高或者比后者高一点或许是合理的。

　　Pressure valve

　　压力阀

　　A recent paper by Emmanuel Farhi of Harvard University, Christopher Sleet and Sevin Yeltekin ofCarnegie Mellon University, and Ivan Werning of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology makesanother argument against abolition. The authors point out that rising inequality is a destabilisingpolitical force, which may encourage future governments to expropriate wealth through heavytaxation. That threat could discourage saving and investment now, something a weak economycannot afford. Paradoxically, a progressive tax on capital in the present may lead to moreinvestment by keeping inequality in check and by convincing firms that their wealth is (mostly) safeover the long term.

　　由哈佛大学的Emmanuel Farhi，卡内基梅隆大学的Christopher Sleet 和Sevin Yeltekin 以及麻省理工学院的Ivan Werning发表的一篇论文中针对取消资本税提出了另一项反证。这些作者指出，愈演愈烈的收入不公会造成政治不稳定，这样就会促使政府在未来通过征收重税来剥夺财富。这种威胁可能会对现在的储蓄和投资产生不利影响，而该影响是当前疲软的经济所无法承受的。矛盾的是，现在对资本渐进地征税或许会导致更多的投资，一方面，它能限制收入不公，另一方面，它可以使公司确信他们的财富在长期大部分都是安全的。

　　Fretting over high capital-tax rates still makes sense, not least because capital is highly mobile. Ifcountries differ in their approach, firms may simply invest more in those with more congenial rates.But from a global perspective, as inequality rises, having taxes on capital income will lookincreasingly attractive—and, by some reckonings, more sensible than previously thought.

　　为了高资本税率烦恼不堪仍然是有道理的，尤其是因为资本具有高度的流动性。如若各国采取的政策不同，那么公司或许会仅仅凭借国家税率的友好程度选择投资方向。然而站在全球视角上来看，对资本收入征税看上去越来越吸引人了，并且在某些人看来，这比我们之前想的要合理多了。

　　confiscatory adj. 充公的;没收的;征用的

　　ardent adj. 热情的;热心的;激烈的;燃烧般的

　　inheritance n. 继承;遗传;遗产

　　abolition n. 废除;废止

　　expropriate vt. 没收，征用;剥夺

　　2015年6月英语四级考试即将拉开帷幕，最后阶段掌握听力技巧必不可少。有时听力失分问题却并不出在听力本身，在听力之外也有很多细节会影响听力部分的得分，比如以下三点。

　　第一，注意单词的正确拼写。

　　改革前的复合式听写题目要求听写的三个句子虽长，但句中会出现很多考生较为熟悉、拼写非常简单的词。而且，即使考生不能将句子中的所有单词拼写正确，阅卷老师也可能会酌情给分。但改革后的单词及短语听写则对单词的正确拼写提出了更高的要求，考生必须将每个单词都拼写正确才能得分。不仅如此，考生还必须用所听到的录音原文中的单词或短语填空，而不可以替换成与之意思相同或相近的单词或短语。所以，改革后的试题要求考生平时更加注意单词和短语的拼写，尤其是一些容易拼写错的单词，如environment、government (两个词中的“n”常被考生遗漏)、embarrass (考生常漏写其中的一个“r”和“s”)等。为了掌握更多的词汇，考生在平时练习时每次做完听力题之后，要好好地阅读录音原文。除了确保所填的单词及短语都拼写正确外，考生还应该看看原文中是否还有自己不会拼写的单词，有的话可以摘抄下来并加以记忆，以防下次考试会考到。

　　第二，注重语法知识的积累。

　　考生在考试时因心情紧张或耳机接收效果不好等原因，很可能会听不到单词的尾音(如词尾的“-s”“-ed”“-ly”或“-ing”等)，结果在填写答案时少写一两个字母。为避免这样的失误，考生在听写结束后一定要将全文通读一遍，根据语法知识判断所填的单词或短语的词性及形式是否正确。如果空格处填入的是名词，考生要判断应填入名词的单数形式还是复数形式;如果空格处可填入形容词和副词，考生要根据语法知识判断最终哪个词性合适;如果填入的是动词，考生要根据时态、语态、人称、数以及前后搭配来确定动词的形式。以样题第32题为例，根据语法知识，考生可以确定此空格处应填入一个副词，用于修饰空格前面的动词use.由此，考生即使没有听清录音中说的是appropriate还是appropriately，也能根据语法知识判断出此处应填入appropriately.又如，样题中的第27、29、33和34题需填入的动词或动词性短语直接出现在介词后，或出现在介词后用“and”连接的两个动名词短语中，此时考生应判断出空格处填入的动词要使用“-ing”形式。短语部分考查动词性短语的概率比较高，因此考生需加强动词短语方面的学习和记忆。

　　第三，掌握单词的标准发音。

　　考生在平时背单词时一定要注意学习单词的标准发音。有些考生英语基础还算不错，但每次听力部分的得分总是不高，原因就是他们的发音不标准。试想，如果考生的发音不标准，又怎么能听懂听力材料中播放的标准发音呢?所以，要想在听力部分得高分，考生必须要掌握单词的标准发音。考生平时在完成听力练习后，可对照着原文再多听几遍录音并进行跟读。这样不仅可以帮助考生纠正发音，还可以培养考生的语感。

　　综上所述，要考好听力，拼写、语法和发音样样都要注意，听力不只是考验你的耳朵，祝大家考试顺利!