给富人设一道最低税（《纽约时报》2012-11-26）
设想一下，一位你敬重也信任的投资人找上门，向你提了一个投资想法。“这可是个好机会，”他兴致勃勃，“我自己已经投了，觉得你也该来一份。”你可能这样回答吗？“嗯，那要看你说咱们将来赚的那笔钱得按什么税率交税。税要是太高，我宁可把钱搁在储蓄账户里，吃那 0.25% 的利息。”这样的回答，只存在于格罗弗·诺奎斯特的想象里。1951 年到 1954 年，资本利得税率是 25%，股息的边际税率在极端情形下高达 91%，我照样卖出证券，做得相当不错。1956 年到 1969 年，最高边际税率略有回落，却仍在 70% 的高位——资本利得税率也一点点爬到了 27.5%。那些年我替投资人打理资金，从没有一个人拿税收当借口，放弃我拿出来的机会。何况就在那样的重税之下，就业和国内生产总值（衡量国家经济产出的指标）都在快速增长，中产阶级和富人一同水涨船高。所以别再幻想什么富人和超级富豪撂挑子罢工，把大把钞票塞进床垫底下了——就算资本利得税率和普通所得税率当真涨了，也不会。包括我在内的超级富豪，只会永远追着投资机会跑。而且，天哪，我们手里可有的是钱。今年，汇集全美最富有个人的《福布斯》400 富豪榜，把财富总额刷出了新高：1.7 万亿美元，是 1992 年那 3000 亿美元的五倍还多。这些年，我们这帮人早把中产阶级甩得看不见影，一路顺风顺水，全靠减税这股强劲的东风推着走。1992 年，全美收入最高的 400 人（这是另一拨人，跟《福布斯》榜单不是一回事）所缴的税，平均占其调整后总收入的 26.4%；到了 2009 年——有数据可查的最近一年——这个比例降到了 19.9%。上头有人照应，滋味确实不赖。这群人 2009 年的平均收入是 2.02 亿美元——按每周 40 小时算，折合“时薪”9.7 万美元（我姑且当他们连午饭时间也照发工钱）。可就是这些超级富豪，超过四分之一的人，把联邦所得税和工资税加在一起，缴税还不到收入的 15%；其中一半人，缴的税率不到 20%。而且——坐稳了——真有几个人分文未缴。这般荒唐，说明光是简单调高高收入者的税率还远远不够，尽管那是该迈出的第一步。我支持奥巴马总统的主张，取消针对高收入纳税人的布什减税。不过我更愿意把这条线定得比 25 万美元再高一些——比方说 50 万美元上下。除此之外，我们需要国会立刻动手，对高收入开征一道最低税。我的建议是：收入落在 100 万到 1000 万美元之间的部分，按 30% 征；超过 1000 万美元的部分，按 35% 征。这样一条明明白白的规矩，就能挡住说客、律师和那些眼巴巴等着政治献金的议员，不让他们再替超级富豪把税率压得远低于那些收入只有我们零头的人。唯有对极高收入征一道最低税，才不至于让这些为富人冲锋陷阵的斗士把明面上的税率掏空。尤其要紧的是，我们不该打着“改革”税法的旗号，把这些改动一拖再拖。诚然，税法是该大改了。像“附带权益”这类名堂就得废掉，它能把劳动所得变戏法似的换成资本利得；而开曼群岛的一个邮件转发地址，竟能成为富人和企业腾挪避税的枢纽，实在叫人作呕。可是，改这些盘根错节的复杂条款，不该拖住我们去纠正那些简单又代价高昂的不公。有些人一心想护住特权阶层，硬说不能把所有问题一举解决就索性什么都别动——我们绝不能让他们得逞。政府的目标，应当是把收入做到 GDP 的 18.5%，支出控制在 GDP 的 21% 左右——这两个水平过去都曾长期达到过，眼下显然还能再度企及。算一算就清楚，这么做并不能止住预算赤字，赤字照旧会有；但哪怕对通胀和经济增长只作保守的估计，这样的收支比例也足以让美国的债务相对于经济产出保持稳定。上一个财年，我们离这样的财政平衡还差得远——收入只占 GDP 的 15.5%，支出却占到 22.4%。要把航向掰正，共和党和民主党都得作出重大让步。全美国都在等国会拿出一份既现实又具体的方案，让国家重回财政稳健的正轨。达不到这一点，我们绝不答应。这期间，你说不定会遇上某个揣着绝妙投资点子的人，只因担心一旦成功要交税，就迟迟不肯出手。把他领到我这儿来吧，我来替他卸下这副包袱。沃伦·E·巴菲特系伯克希尔·哈撒韦公司董事长兼首席执行官。
SUPPOSE that an investor you admire and trust comes to you with an investment idea. “This is a good one,” he says enthusiastically. “I’m in it, and I think you should be, too.” Would your reply possibly be this? “Well, it all depends on what my tax rate will be on the gain you’re saying we’re going to make. If the taxes are too high, I would rather leave the money in my savings account, earning a quarter of 1 percent.” Only in Grover Norquist’s imagination does such a response exist. Between 1951 and 1954, when the capital gains rate was 25 percent and marginal rates on dividends reached 91 percent in extreme cases, I sold securities and did pretty well. In the years from 1956 to 1969, the top marginal rate fell modestly, but was still a lofty 70 percent — and the tax rate on capital gains inched up to 27.5 percent. I was managing funds for investors then. Never did anyone mention taxes as a reason to forgo an investment opportunity that I offered. Under those burdensome rates, moreover, both employment and the gross domestic product (a measure of the nation’s economic output) increased at a rapid clip. The middle class and the rich alike gained ground. So let’s forget about the rich and ultrarich going on strike and stuffing their ample funds under their mattresses if — gasp — capital gains rates and ordinary income rates are increased. The ultrarich, including me, will forever pursue investment opportunities. And, wow, do we have plenty to invest. The Forbes 400 , the wealthiest individuals in America, hit a new group record for wealth this year: $1.7 trillion. That’s more than five times the $300 billion total in 1992. In recent years, my gang has been leaving the middle class in the dust. A huge tail wind from tax cuts has pushed us along. In 1992, the tax paid by the 400 highest incomes in the United States (a different universe from the Forbes list) averaged 26.4 percent of adjusted gross income. In 2009, the most recent year reported, the rate was 19.9 percent. It’s nice to have friends in high places. The group’s average income in 2009 was $202 million — which works out to a “wage” of $97,000 per hour, based on a 40-hour workweek. (I’m assuming they’re paid during lunch hours.) Yet more than a quarter of these ultrawealthy paid less than 15 percent of their take in combined federal income and payroll taxes. Half of this crew paid less than 20 percent. And — brace yourself — a few actually paid nothing. This outrage points to the necessity for more than a simple revision in upper-end tax rates, though that’s the place to start. I support President Obama’s proposal to eliminate the Bush tax cuts for high-income taxpayers. However, I prefer a cutoff point somewhat above $250,000 — maybe $500,000 or so. Additionally, we need Congress, right now, to enact a minimum tax on high incomes. I would suggest 30 percent of taxable income between $1 million and $10 million, and 35 percent on amounts above that. A plain and simple rule like that will block the efforts of lobbyists, lawyers and contribution-hungry legislators to keep the ultrarich paying rates well below those incurred by people with income just a tiny fraction of ours. Only a minimum tax on very high incomes will prevent the stated tax rate from being eviscerated by these warriors for the wealthy. Above all, we should not postpone these changes in the name of “reforming” the tax code. True, changes are badly needed. We need to get rid of arrangements like “carried interest” that enable income from labor to be magically converted into capital gains. And it’s sickening that a Cayman Islands mail drop can be central to tax maneuvering by wealthy individuals and corporations. But the reform of such complexities should not promote delay in our correcting simple and expensive inequities. We can’t let those who want to protect the privileged get away with insisting that we do nothing until we can do everything. Our government’s goal should be to bring in revenues of 18.5 percent of G.D.P. and spend about 21 percent of G.D.P. — levels that have been attained over extended periods in the past and can clearly be reached again. As the math makes clear, this won’t stem our budget deficits; in fact, it will continue them. But assuming even conservative projections about inflation and economic growth, this ratio of revenue to spending will keep America’s debt stable in relation to the country’s economic output. In the last fiscal year, we were far away from this fiscal balance — bringing in 15.5 percent of G.D.P. in revenue and spending 22.4 percent. Correcting our course will require major concessions by both Republicans and Democrats. All of America is waiting for Congress to offer a realistic and concrete plan for getting back to this fiscally sound path. Nothing less is acceptable. In the meantime, maybe you’ll run into someone with a terrific investment idea, who won’t go forward with it because of the tax he would owe when it succeeds. Send him my way. Let me unburden him. Warren E. Buffett is the chairman and chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway.