It might not come as a surprise to many that Bill Gates, whom Forbes’ magazine ranks as the second wealthiest man in the world, doesn’t agree with the ideas of French economist Thomas Piketty.

    It’s Piketty, after all, who made a big splash this year with his book Capital in the 21st Century, which argued that it is a fundamental law of capitalism that wealth will grow more concentrated absent destabilizing events like global wars. Piketty’s solution? A global tax on capital that could help governments better understand how wealth is distributed and stem the tide of inevitably increasing inequality, which Piketty believes is socially destabilizing.

    If you believe the Forbes list, there is nobody in the world besides Carlos Slim who has more to lose than Bill Gates if Piketty’s global wealth on tax were to be instituted. But Gates’ critique of Piketty’s work, published Monday on his personal blog, isn’t completely self-interested. After all, Gates has already pledged to give away half his fortune over the course of his lifetime, a much larger amount than the 1% or 2% wealth tax, proposed by Piketty, would confiscate. His problem isn’t with the idea that the super wealthy should spread their fortunes around, but ratherwithPiketty’s mechanism and the incentives it would create:

    “Imagine three types of wealthy people. One guy is putting his capital into building his business. Then there’s a woman who’s giving most of her wealth to charity. A third person is mostly consuming, spending a lot of money on things like a yacht and plane. While it’s true that the wealth of all three people is contributing to inequality, I would argue that the first two are delivering more value to society than the third. I wish Piketty had made this distinction, because it has important policy implications.”

    Gates shares Piketty’s goal of spreading wealth, yet he doesn’t want to discourage the uber wealthy (like Gates) who are taking risks, investing in value-creating businesses, and helping the world through philanthropy. Gates’ solution? Shift the American tax code from one that taxes labor to one that taxes consumption. Now, this sounds like standard, right-wing economic theory. Consumption taxes are usually favored by the wealthy and by conservative economists because they tend to be regressive in nature. Since everyone—rich and poor—have to consume some amount of goods and services, and because the proportion of income spent is much higher for the poor than the rich, consumption taxes like state and local sales tax burden the poor more than the rich.

    But this doesn’t necessarily have to be the case. Economists like Cornell University’s Robert Frank have long advocated for progressive consumption taxes that could do much to solve what they perceive as the ills of growing income inequality. As Frank writes:

    比尔•盖茨不赞同法国经济学家托马斯•皮凯蒂的理念，对许多人来说也许并不意外，要知道，盖茨可是《福布斯》杂志（Forbes）评选的全球第二大富豪。

    今年名声大噪的皮凯蒂，在其著作《21世纪资本论》（Capital in the 21st Century）中指出，如果没有全球战争等打破稳定格局的事件，财富会越发集中，这就是资本主义的基本法则。如何解决这一问题？皮凯蒂的建议是征收全球资本税，帮助各国政府更好地掌握财富分配情况，并遏制贫富差距扩大的必然趋势。皮凯蒂认为，贫富差距扩大会影响社会稳定。

    如果《福布斯》富豪榜排名无误，那么真按皮凯蒂的建议开征全球财富税的话，除了世界首富卡洛斯•斯利姆，受打击最大的将非比尔•盖茨莫属。不过，盖茨上周在个人博客上批评皮凯蒂的大作，并不是完全是为了自身利益。毕竟，盖茨已经承诺，在世期间将捐出自己一半财产，这一比例远远高于皮凯蒂建议的1%或2%的财产税。盖茨有意见的，不是超级富豪应该散财的观点，而是皮凯蒂提出的机制以及此机制将形成的诱因。

    “假设有三种不同类型的富人。第一位男士把资金用来发展业务。第二位女士把大多数财产用于慈善。而第三位富人把大部分都用来消费，购入游艇和飞机等。虽然他们拥有的财富确实都造成了贫富不均，但我要说，前两位给社会创造的价值要超过第三位。皮凯蒂应对此加以区分，因为这对政策的影响很大。”

    和皮凯蒂一样，盖茨的目标也是把财产分出去。但他不愿打击那些（像他一样）

    冒着风险、投资于创造价值的企业、通过慈善帮助世界的超级富豪的积极性。那么，盖茨对此有何良策？他认为，应该调整美国税法，从对劳动所得征税变为对消费征税。这听起来像是标准的右翼经济理论。富人和保守经济学家通常都偏好消费税，因为该税种往往具有递减特性。因为无论富人还是穷人，都得消费一定量的产品和服务，而穷人消费占自身收入的比重远高于富人，因此，州政府和地方政府销售税这类消费税对穷人的影响比对富人大。

    但这种情况可以改变。长期以来，包括康奈尔大学（Cornell University）罗伯特•弗兰克教授在内的经济学家，一直倡导采用累进制消费税。他们认为，该税制在消除贫富差距扩大的弊端方面大有可为。弗兰克写道：

    “Under such a tax, people would report not only their income but also their annual savings, as many already do under 401(k) plans and other retirement accounts. A family’s annual consumption is simply the difference between its income and its annual savings. That amount, minus a standard deduction—say, $30,000 for a family of four—would be the family’s taxable consumption. Rates would start low, like 10 percent. A family that earned $50,000 and saved $5,000 would thus have taxable consumption of $15,000.”

    “Consider a family that spends $10 million a year and is deciding whether to add a $2 million wing to its mansion. If the top marginal tax rate on consumption were 100 percent, the project would cost $4 million. The additional tax payment would reduce the federal deficit by $2 million. Alternatively, the family could scale back, building only a $1 million addition. Then it would pay $1 million in additional tax and could deposit $2 million in savings. The federal deficit would fall by $1 million, and the additional savings would stimulate investment, promoting growth. Either way, the nation would come out ahead with no real sacrifice required of the wealthy family, because when all build larger houses, the result is merely to redefine what constitutes acceptable housing. With a consumption tax in place, most neighbors would also scale back the new wings on their mansions.”

    As you can see, one of the strategies behind this tax regime is to reduce the incentive to consume. With less conspicuous consumption, the poor would suffer from the negative effects of having less than those around them. As many behavioral studies have shown, relative wealth has more of an impact on personal happiness than absolute wealth.

    Such a regime could appeal to both the right and left sides of the political spectrum. For those on the left, who are sometimes uncomfortable with the effects of a culture based around consumption, this tax would discourage such behavior. Meanwhile, a regime that encourages savings and investment would appeal to conservatives.

    But for a progressive consumption tax to be truly progressive, there would need to be a hefty estate tax to prevent the rich from simply letting their wealth grow over generations through interest income. But Gates argues this is not a problem, because we have the ability to institute estate taxes, a policy which he is a “big believer” in.

    “在这样的税制下，人们不光要申报收入，还要申报每年的储蓄额，就像许多人在提交401（k）养老金或其他养老金申报表时所做的那样。收入和储蓄之差就是一个家庭的年消费额。而该家庭的应税消费额，则是该数字减去一定标准扣除数，比如说一个四口之家的标准扣除数为3万美元。起始税率可以较低，例如10%。这样，如果一个四口之家年收入5万美元，储蓄5千美元，其应税消费额就是1.5万美元。”

    “假设一个年消费1千万美元的家庭正在考虑，是否要花200万美元，为自家豪宅增建侧翼。如果最高边际消费税率为100%，那么这项工程将耗资400万美元。由此带来的税收，能使联邦政府赤字减少200万美元。或者，这个家庭可以压缩规模，只花1百万美元来扩建房屋。这样的话，他们就需要缴1百万美元的税，可以把省下的2百万美元存起来。如此一来，联邦政府赤字会减少1百万美元，而新增的2百万美元储蓄则可以刺激投资、促进增长。无论哪种情况，国家都能获益，而且这个富有家庭无需做出任何真正的牺牲。因为如果所有人都扩建房屋，其结果只会导致人们对住房的要求越来越高。由于存在消费税，大多数邻居也会缩小自家房屋的扩建规模。”

    如大家所见，这种税制的策略之一是削弱消费动力。如果挥霍性消费减少，钱比别人少一事就不会对穷人造成过大的困扰。许多行为研究都表明，较之绝对富裕程度，相对富裕程度对个人幸福感的影响更大。

    这样的措施对美国左翼和右翼政治势力可能都有吸引力。左翼人士有时会对消费文化的影响感到不安，对他们来说，这种税制可以降低人们的消费积极性。同时，鼓励储蓄和投资的措施将受到右翼人士的欢迎。

    然而，累进制消费税要真正具有递增特性，还需要征收高额遗产税，以免富人通过利息收入实现财富代代递增。但盖茨认为这不成问题，因为我们有能力征收遗产税，而且他“深信”该政策行之有效。（财富中文网）

    译者：Charlie