Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)
Tax cuts for the wealthy only benefit the rich (2023)
针对富人的减税政策只会让富人受益（2023）
History suggests that policies relying on “trickle-down economics” are destined to fail, and yet the idea, for some, still persists. David Hope explains why tax cuts for top earners only benefit the rich and why the issue is so controversial to discuss. 历史表明，依赖“涓滴经济学”的政策注定会失败，然而对某些人来说，这种观念依然存在。大卫·霍普（David Hope）解释了为什么针对高收入者的减税政策只会让富人受益，以及为什么这个问题在讨论中如此具有争议性。
When then UK Prime Minister Liz Truss and Treasurer Kwasi Kwarteng sparked economic turmoil by announcing unfunded tax cuts for top earners to boost economic growth, it created one of the most extraordinary political crises in UK history. 当当时的英国首相莉兹·特拉斯（Liz Truss）和财政大臣夸西·克沃滕（Kwasi Kwarteng）宣布为高收入者减税以刺激经济增长，却因缺乏资金来源而引发经济动荡时，这造成了英国历史上最非同寻常的政治危机之一。
Their “mini budget” spooked the markets and was widely condemned for appearing to rely on the discredited theory of “trickle-down economics”. But it’s an idea that has persisted: the last 50 years has seen a dramatic decline in taxes on the rich across advanced democracies. Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump were all elected on promises of major tax cuts for top earners, arguing that freeing up money for the wealthy allows them to hire more workers, pay better wages and invest more. 他们的“迷你预算”惊吓了市场，并因被认为依赖于已被证伪的“涓滴经济学”理论而受到广泛谴责。但这一观念却一直存在：在过去的50年里，发达民主国家的富人税率出现了大幅下降。玛格丽特·撒切尔、罗纳德·里根和唐纳德·特朗普在竞选时都承诺为高收入者大幅减税，他们认为，让富人拥有更多资金可以使他们雇佣更多员工、支付更好的工资并进行更多投资。
In research first published as a working paper in 2020, David Hope and Julian Limberg, of LSE’s International Inequalities Institute and King’s College London, analysed the economic effects of major tax cuts for the rich across five decades in 18 wealthy nations. 在2020年首次作为工作论文发表的一项研究中，伦敦政治经济学院（LSE）国际不平等研究所和伦敦国王学院的大卫·霍普与朱利安·林伯格（Julian Limberg）分析了18个富裕国家在过去五十年中，针对富人的大规模减税政策所产生的经济影响。
Their conclusion: the rich got richer and there was no meaningful effect on unemployment or economic growth. It really struck a nerve: after being press released by LSE, it attracted extensive global media coverage, went viral on social media, and was cited by high-profile economists and politicians. As a result, it became the most downloaded paper in the history of LSE Research Online - the database of all research produced by LSE academics. 他们的结论是：富人变得更富了，而对失业率或经济增长没有任何显著影响。这项研究确实触动了敏感神经：在伦敦政治经济学院发布新闻稿后，它吸引了全球媒体的广泛报道，在社交媒体上疯传，并被知名经济学家和政治家引用。因此，它成为了伦敦政治经济学院在线研究数据库（LSE Research Online）历史上下载量最高的论文。
Dr Hope explained: “So, it was, I would say, not the typical response we get when we publish an academic paper. It has been downloaded about 150,000 times. To put that in some context, my previous working paper in that series was downloaded, I think, a staggering 200 times. And so this was really quite different from the norm in that respect.” 霍普博士解释说：“所以，我想说，这并不是我们发表学术论文时通常会得到的反应。它被下载了大约15万次。作为对比，我在该系列中的上一篇工作论文下载量我想只有惊人的200次。因此，在这方面，这确实与常态大不相同。”
Dr Limberg added: “It was actually quite interesting because we got more or less two types of reactions. One was, ‘This cannot be true, and we don’t believe this.’ And also, ‘You are socialists and that’s it.’ And the other type of reaction was, ‘Well I knew all of this already. Thank you Captain Obvious.’ There was little ground in between these two extremes, which we found quite surprising. It actually strengthened our belief that a data-driven approach, going a bit beyond this political polarisation, is needed.” 林伯格博士补充道：“这其实很有趣，因为我们收到的反应大致分为两类。一类是：‘这不可能是真的，我们不相信。’还有‘你们就是社会主义者，仅此而已。’而另一类反应则是：‘好吧，我早就知道这些了。谢谢你，显而易见的队长（Captain Obvious）。’在这两个极端之间几乎没有中间地带，这让我们感到非常惊讶。这实际上加强了我们的信念，即需要一种超越这种政治极化的、数据驱动的方法。”
Dr Hope added: “We were a bit naïve maybe in not thinking about this beforehand, but it’s clearly a very partisan and polarised and politically contentious issue, particularly in the US. In part because as they’ve evolved through Democrat and Republican administrations, there have been major changes in taxes on the rich. We’ve seen big tax cuts under George W. Bush and under Donald Trump, in particular, so I think it really plays into the political dynamic in that country and that was why people were very engaged with it.” 霍普博士补充说：“我们之前没考虑到这一点，可能有点天真，但这显然是一个非常具有党派色彩、极化且在政治上充满争议的问题，尤其是在美国。部分原因是随着民主党和共和党政府的更迭，富人税收发生了重大变化。我们特别看到在乔治·W·布什和唐纳德·特朗普执政期间的大规模减税，所以我认为这确实影响了该国的政治动态，这就是为什么人们对此非常关注。”
In explaining why cutting taxes for the rich did nothing to boost economies, Dr Hope referred to the economist Thomas Piketty, who argues that unless capitalism is reformed, it will threaten the democratic order. “Our results align pretty closely with some work from Thomas Piketty, that would suggest that what happens if you cut taxes on the rich is that they then bargain more aggressively for their own compensation at the direct expense of workers lower down the income distribution. So, the story of the paper then is really to do with rent-seeking among CEOs and top executives - and that increasing when you have lower taxes on the rich.” 在解释为什么为富人减税无法刺激经济时，霍普博士提到了经济学家托马斯·皮凯蒂（Thomas Piketty），他认为除非资本主义进行改革，否则它将威胁到民主秩序。“我们的研究结果与托马斯·皮凯蒂的一些工作非常吻合，这表明如果你为富人减税，他们会以牺牲收入分配中底层工人的利益为代价，更激进地争取自己的薪酬。因此，这篇论文的核心其实是关于首席执行官和高管们的寻租行为——当富人税率降低时，这种行为会增加。”
Dr Hope added: “I think the paper has one major and fairly obvious policy implication, which is not to cut taxes on the rich to boost the economy, particularly if you care about inequality. I think it’s particularly important to make this argument because proponents of cutting taxes on the rich often may use this type of argument in favour of the economic benefits.” 霍普博士补充道：“我认为这篇论文有一个主要且相当明显的政策启示，那就是不要为了刺激经济而给富人减税，特别是如果你关心不平等问题的话。我认为提出这一论点尤为重要，因为支持为富人减税的人往往会利用这种论点来支持其经济效益。”