来源：《卫报》
原文刊登日期：2021年6月9日
文本适合英语二考生
According to US tax information reported this week by journalists at ProPublica, the 25 richest Americans – from Rupert Murdoch to Mark Zuckerberg – are paying a federal tax rate of only 3.4%. Billionaires are paying proportionately less to the government exchequer than the median American household, which gets by from paycheck to paycheck, yet is on a 14% tax rate.
根据ProPublica的记者本周公布的美国税收信息，从鲁珀特•默多克到马克•扎克伯格，25位最富有的美国人缴纳的联邦税率仅为3.4%。亿万富翁向国库支付的比例低于美国中等收入家庭，美国中等收入家庭靠薪水过活，但税率为14%。
One defence of this state of affairs is that the likes of Bill Gates and Warren Buffett are famous for their charitable giving. Indeed, Mr Buffett’s written statement on this issue runs in part: “I believe the money will be of more use to society if disbursed philanthropically than if it is used to slightly reduce an ever-increasing US debt.”
对这种状况的一种辩护是，比尔•盖茨和沃伦•巴菲特等人的慈善捐赠是出了名的。事实上，巴菲特关于这一问题的书面声明在一定程度上是这样表述的：“我相信，这些钱如果用于慈善用途，将比用于小幅减少不断增长的美国债务更有益于社会。”
Except that is a defence of the right of the very wealthy to decide how they wish to donate their cash, with no consultation or necessary transparency. That government debt Mr Buffett disparages will have been accrued in part through building schools and paying unemployment insurance. It may also have been wasted on foreign wars or cruel border security, but its wastage can be democratically contested.
只是，这样的说法是在捍卫非常富有的人有权决定他们如何捐赠现金，而无需商讨或必要的透明度。巴菲特贬低的政府债务部分是因建设学校和支付失业保险累积起来的。钱也可能被浪费在对外战争或残酷的边境安全上，但这样的浪费可以通过民主的方式提出异议。
The other big defence is that Mr Bezos, the $196bn man, is doing nothing illegal or underhand by paying comparatively little in tax. It just so happens that his value is tied up in stock and other assets. This is quite true. It is also a killer argument for taxing wealth better and sharing wealth more fairly. There are numerous good ideas for better wealth taxes, from Elizabeth Warren in the US to the Wealth Tax Commission in the UK. Given both the cost of Covid and the rise in wealth inequality, the intellectual and financial case for instituting a serious wealth tax on people with high net assets cannot be denied.
另一个有力的辩护理由是，身家1960亿美元的贝佐斯缴纳的税款相对较少，但这并没有违法或是什么不正当的行为。他的财富恰好与股票和其他资产挂钩。这是千真万确的。但也是更好地征收财富税、更公平地分享财富的有力论据。提高财富税的好主意有很多，从美国的伊丽莎白•沃伦到英国的财富税委员会。考虑到防疫的成本和财富不平等的加剧，对高净资产人群征收高额财富税的理论和金融论据是不可否认的。
The arguments for more redistribution are evident from our Covid-era disputes about the capacity of our hospitals and schools, but the importance of a fair division of the spoils of growth has become even clearer. Similarly, the arguments for having more public housing, more co-operatives, and insisting that companies enjoying limited liability live up to their social obligations have been well-rehearsed since the banking crash. It is the political case that needs to be made.
从新冠肺炎时代关于医院和学校容量的争论中可以明显看出更多再分配的理由，但公平分配经济增长成果的重要性已变得更加明显。类似地，自银行业崩盘以来，关于拥有更多公共住房、更多合作社以及坚持有限责任公司履行其社会义务的论点已经重复过无数次。这是需要提出的政治论据。