如何实现财富税与所得税之间的转换
内容来源：https://paulgraham.com/winc.html
内容总结：
财富税与所得税的转换：1%财富税竟相当于20%所得税
2026年5月讯 —— 一项看似简单的数学换算问题，却暴露出许多政客在税收政策认知上的重大盲区。据分析，1%的财富税实际上等同于20%的所得税，然而多数政客在谈论“区区1%”的财富税时，似乎完全忽略了这一换算关系。
换算原理：关键在于资本回报率
财富税与所得税之间的换算率约为20倍。这一数字基于5%的无风险资本回报率假设（历史数据更接近4%，但5%足以说明问题）。具体而言：
假设您持有100美元本金，年回报率为5%，即每年获得5美元收益。若征收20%的所得税，您需缴纳1美元税款，税后收益为4美元，年底总资产为104美元。而若改为征收1%的财富税，您同样获得5美元收益，但需缴纳1美元财富税，年底资产同样为99美元+5美元=104美元。由此可见，1%财富税与20%所得税在效果上完全等同。
政客的认知误区
政客们常将“仅1%”的财富税描述为温和措施，却绝口不提“增加20%所得税”这一等价表述。实际上，若美国某州在现行税率基础上再追加20%所得税，其最高边际税率将跃居全球前列。
目前全球最高边际所得税率为丹麦的60.5%。美国联邦最高税率为37%，州所得税中位数为俄克拉荷马州的4.75%。若某州追加20%所得税，其总边际税率将达37%+4.75%+20%=61.75%，超过丹麦成为全球最高。换言之，政客们轻描淡写的“1%财富税”，实则意味着让本州居民承受全球最重的税负。
为何换算如此重要？
财富税与所得税的换算同样适用于资本利得税，其核心在于征税频率——财富税每年征收，而所得税仅对当年收益征税。这一数学原理与任何创收资产的估值逻辑完全一致。
专家指出，政客们之所以轻率提出财富税方案，正因为他们缺乏这一基本换算认知。不过，一旦意识到问题存在，理解答案并不困难。关键在于，政策制定者必须先学会算清这笔账。
中文翻译：
| 2026年5月 如何在财富税与所得税之间进行换算？如果政府征收1%的财富税，这相当于多少所得税？ 从大多数政客谈论这一话题的方式来看，他们不仅不知道答案，甚至没有意识到存在这样一个问题。 事实上，两者之间的换算率大约为20。1%的财富税相当于20%的所得税。 要将财富税率与所得税率进行换算，需要用资本回报率来除。换算率20是基于假设无风险回报率为5%。历史上这是一个乐观的假设。4%可能更现实。但5%也可以。 [1] 如果我们用一个例子来说明，就会清楚其中的原理。假设你有100美元，这笔资本的回报率为5%，并且有20%的所得税。5%的回报率意味着一年后你的100美元又赚了5美元。但你必须支付其中的20%，即1美元作为所得税，所以你的税后收入是4美元。到年底，缴税后，你有100美元+4美元=104美元。 现在假设不是20%的所得税，而是1%的财富税。一年后，你的100美元像之前一样又赚了5美元。但这一年，你必须支付你100美元的1%，即1美元作为财富税。所以到年底，你有99美元+5美元=104美元。 每1%的财富税相当于20%的所得税。 很明显，政客们并不理解这一点，从他们谈论“区区1%”财富税的方式就能看出。没有谁会提到在所得税率上增加“区区20%”，尽管这在数学上是同一回事。 [2] 政客们明白，额外增加20%的所得税会非常高昂。确实，如果一个美国州在其最高所得税率上增加20%，那将导致极高的税收。 目前，边际所得税率最高的国家是丹麦，为60.5%。美国联邦最高税率为37%，而州所得税率的中位数为俄克拉荷马州的4.75%。因此，在中位数情况下，一个州额外增加20%的所得税，其总边际税率将为37%+4.75%+20%，即61.75%。 [3] 在中位数情况下，谈论增加“区区1%”财富税的美国州政客，实际上是在谈论让本州居民承担全球最高的税收。这不是一个可以轻率做出的决定。 这就是为什么我认为目前很少有政客理解如何在财富税和所得税之间进行换算。从他们谈论这个话题的方式可以看出，他们并不明白自己提案的重大意义。但我乐观地认为我们可以教会他们。一旦你意识到这个问题的存在，答案并不难理解。 注释 [1] 如果你愿意承担资本损失的风险，有可能获得更高的回报率。但为了换算税率，你应该使用无风险回报率，因为从反投资的角度看，财富税是绝对无风险的：你绝对会欠政府这笔钱。尽管在谈论回报时，确实需要给“无风险”加上引号，但你现在谈论的那种风险近乎世界末日，足以让税率问题变得无关紧要。 [2] 同样的换算率也适用于资本利得。倍数差异的来源在于资金是每年征税还是一次性征税。事实上，这与计算任何创收资产价值的数学原理相同。 [3] 你可以从联邦所得税中扣除部分州税，但可扣除的金额有上限，这意味着在边际情况下，我们只需将两个税率相加。 感谢特雷弗·布莱克威尔、杰西卡·利文斯顿、卡罗琳·利维、乔恩·利维、亚历克斯·塔巴罗克和哈吉·泰格对草稿的审阅。 |
|---|
英文来源：
| May 2026 How do you convert between wealth and income tax? If a government imposes a wealth tax of 1%, what's the equivalent in income tax? It's clear from the way most politicians talk about the subject that they not only don't know the answer, but don't even realize there's such a question. In fact the conversion rate between them is about 20. A wealth tax of 1% is equivalent to an income tax of 20%. To convert between wealth and income tax rates, you have to divide by the rate of return on capital. The conversion rate of 20 comes from assuming that the risk-free rate of return is 5%. Historically that's an optimistic assumption. 4% might be more realistic. But 5% will do. [1] If we run through an example it will be clear how this works. Suppose you have $100, you're getting a 5% rate of return on this capital, and there's a 20% income tax. The 5% rate of return means at the end of one year your $100 has made you another $5. But you have to pay 20% of that, or $1, in income tax, so your after-tax income is $4. At the end of the year, after paying taxes, you have $100 + $4 = $104. Now suppose instead of a 20% income tax, there's a 1% wealth tax. At the end of the year your $100 has made you another $5, as before. But that year you had to pay 1% of your $100, or $1, in wealth tax. So at the end of the year you have $99 + $5 = $104. Each 1% of wealth tax is equivalent to 20% of income tax. It's clear that politicians don't get this from the way they talk about a "mere 1%" wealth tax. None of them would speak of adding a "mere 20%" to the income tax rate, even though that's mathematically the same thing. [2] Politicians understand that an additional 20% income tax would be a lot. And indeed a US state that added 20% to its top income tax rate would have extraordinarily high taxes. Currently the country with the highest marginal income tax rate is Denmark, at 60.5%. The top US federal tax rate is 37%, and the median state income tax rate is Oklahoma's, which is 4.75%. So in the median case, a state adding an additional 20% in income tax would have a total marginal tax rate of 37% + 4.75% + 20%, or 61.75%. [3] In the median case, US state politicians talking about adding a "mere 1%" wealth tax are talking about causing the residents of their state to have the highest taxes in the world. That's not the sort of decision you make lightly. That's why I think few politicians currently understand how to convert between wealth and income taxes. You can tell from the way they talk about the subject that they don't understand the momentousness of what they're proposing. But I'm optimistic that we can teach them. The answer's not hard to understand, once you realize the question exists. Notes [1] It's possible to get a higher rate of return if you're willing to risk losing your capital. But to convert between tax rates you should use the risk-free rate of return, because considered as an anti-investment, a wealth tax is absolutely risk-free: you will absolutely owe the government that money. And while you do have to put "risk-free" in scare quotes when talking about returns, the kind of risks you're talking about now are the almost apocalyptic kind that would make tax rates a moot point. [2] The same conversion rate applies to capital gains. The source of the multiple is whether the money is taxed every year or just once. Indeed it's the same math you'd use to calculate the value of any income-generating asset. [3] You can deduct some state tax from your federal income taxes, but there's a cap on how much you can deduct, which means in the marginal case we simply add the two rates. Thanks to Trevor Blackwell, Jessica Livingston, Carolynn Levy, Jon Levy, Alex Tabarrok, and Harj Taggar for reading drafts of this. |
|
|---|---|
文章目录
扫描二维码，在手机上阅读