[20180508] Trump 的減稅究竟是優秀還是糟糕的政策?- Part 2

Why the Trump Tax Cuts Are Awesome/Terrible (part 2)

by Stephen J. Dubner @Freaknomics.com

延續昨天的 Part 1,今天 Part 2 的主角是小布希時期的 CEA 主席 Glenn Hubbard 和歐巴馬時期的兩位主席 Austan Goolsbee 和 Jason Furman。

經濟學作爲一個信奉數據和實證的學科,其實踐者/傳道者卻明顯的有派系之別。這次偏向民主黨的兩位經濟學家和相較於 Hasset 更靠中間的共和黨經濟學家將對 Trump 稅改 (減稅) 提供自己的看法。

Freakonomics Radio 非常貼心的替(幾乎?)每一次的 podcast 提供了文字版本,以下摘錄皆取自文字版本。

首先是三人的經歷 (除了 CEA 主席外):

  • Glenn Hubbard: Columbia 商學院院長、金融和經濟學教授
  • Austan Goolsbee: 芝加哥大學 Booth 商學院教授
  • Jason Furman: Harvard Kennedy 學院教授。克林頓時期 CEA 和 National Economic Council (NEC) 成員。曾在世界銀行短暫工作。

Glenn Hubbard 是小布希時期減稅政策的主要架構師,對於該政策的成效,他表示雖然有些瑕疵,但整體是正面的 (但他也強調當時發生了很多意料之外的全球事件):

… I think cuts in marginal rates that President Bush advocated were definitely the right policy. There were things in the 2001/2003 tax acts that I thought were actually quite expensive and probably contributed little to economic growth. But I think on balance it was still the right policy.

企業稅

Hubbard 在 2016 年競選期間曾經批評 Trump 的經濟政策很”瘋狂” (crazy),現在他對 Trump 實際的稅改看法是比較正面的,他認爲大方向是正確的,像亂發推特等自毀行爲的只是一些小缺陷。他尤其認爲削減企業稅對長期的資本和生產力累積很有幫助。

Furman 也同意美國對企業稅長期以來存在問題,但他認爲這次這個稅改政策設計地非常糟糕。他認爲該改進的三個地方:

FURMAN: I would, first of all, pay for it. Second of all, make all of it stable so you have permanent provisions that are predictable. Third, I’d have more incentives for R&D going forward. And finally, some things in the bill that I think were quite good: letting businesses write off their equipment investment. I would have made sure that those were permanent and not something that was phased out after five years.

Furman 提到 Obama 時期他們曾經試圖對企業稅做改革,也得到一些共和黨人的支持,但最後功敗垂成。他認爲原因是他們堅持稅改必須不增加赤字:

And I think that was partly because we had this quaint idea that the whole thing should be paid for, and it turns out that’s a lot more difficult politically.

Goolsbee 簡短敘述了他和 Obama 家庭的關系,然後介紹了 Obama 時期的經濟激勵政策 (The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) —— 三分之一是短期的激勵、三分之一是長期如基礎建設的激勵、最後三分之一是減稅,給中產階級的減稅 (根據 Goolsbee,此次減稅是美國史上對中產階級最大的減稅)。Trump 的稅改政策則是標準的 trickle down 政策 —— 相信對有錢人的減稅會造福較不富有的階層, Goolsbee 表示這個說法在實證數據中早已被證僞,根本是胡說八道。

對於 Hasset 提出的”實證數據”,Goolsbee 表示不以爲然,認爲其中有很多明顯的問題:

Now, I will say that in this presentation, I felt that it was heavily shading factual information to be cherry-picked to make it seem like something had something to do with Donald Trump, or the tax code, when it was rather obvious that it didn’t... He inherited the lowest unemployment rate of any new president in a half-century.  You know, if they put up a graph, check the dates, just look at it.

對於 Apple 最近宣布將把 2250 億美元”帶回”美國的決定, Goolsbee 和 Furman 都認爲宣示大於實際意義。但 Furman 承認方便金錢進出大方向上是對的,但容易逃稅的漏洞還是沒有被補上。

赤字

根據國會預算辦公室 (CBO) 的估計, 就算經濟持續成長, 美國國家債務十年後將從 21 兆成長到 33 兆美元。Goolsbee 認爲長此以往個人稅率勢必會被提高,尤其要注意的是個人稅率的減低在 Trump 稅改中是有效期限制的:

GOOLSBEE: And the Republicans are responding by saying, “No, no, but we’ll never let that happen, we’ll just extend all of those things when they’re about to expire.” Okay. But then it doesn’t cost $1.5 trillion, it costs more like $3.5 trillion.

偏向共和黨的 Hubbard 都承認 Trump 稅改極大可能會增加赤字。

遺產稅 (estate tax) 和 商業實體 (Pass-throughs) 稅率

The “high-income pass-throughs” he’s talking about include certain L.L.C.’s and even sole proprietorships that, under the new tax law, will be able to write off 20 percent of their qualified business income.

基本上三位經濟學家都認爲對商業實體個別減稅弊大於利。Furman 認爲降低遺產稅對增加經濟成長沒有任何意義。

降低稅務複雜度

藉由降低標準扣除額,Trump 稅改的確降低了約 2500 萬人的保稅流程,但 Furman 表示它同時也增加了很多複雜度。

給富人的大禮包?

Hubbard 以自己爲例表示不是所有富人都收益。

Photo Credit

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *

這個網站採用 Akismet 服務減少垃圾留言。進一步瞭解 Akismet 如何處理網站訪客的留言資料