如果减税意味着少缴税，为什么人们反对减税呢？
Why are people against tax cuts if it means paying less tax?
译文简介
Quora网民探讨减税利弊
正文翻译
如果减税意味着少缴税，为什么人们反对减税呢？
评论翻译
很赞 ( 2 )
收藏
Because the finance minister does not eat those taxes.
Taxes are used to pay for services that the state provides. Cutting taxes means lowering the amount of money the state can use to provide those services. If the state has less funds at its disposal, then either services have to be cut or the state has to take on more debt. Both may not be desirable.
Hardly anyone (at least no one I know) particularly enjoys paying taxes, but having the state provide for some things is often easier and more economical than if every member of a society would pay for that service themselves (this often would not even be possible). This means that even if my taxes were cut this would not necessarily mean that I actually have more money at my disposal.
因为财政部长不靠这些税吃饭。
税收用于支付国家提供的服务。减税意味着减少国家可用于提供这些服务的资金数额，如果国家可支配的资金减少，那么要么必须削减服务，要么国家必须承担更多债务。两者可能都不是理想的。
几乎没有人（至少我认识的人）特别喜欢纳税，但是让国家提供某些东西通常比社会的每个成员自己支付该服务的费用更容易和更经济（这通常甚至是不可能的）。这意味着，即使我的税收被削减，也并不一定意味着我实际上有更多的钱可供支配。
Original question: “Why are people against tax cuts if it means paying less tax?”
Because they like what government provides.
The tax rate gets all the glory but is the lesser part of the equation. What is more important is the question “What do we want government to do and at what level?” Do we government to do services A, B and C? If yes, then how much of each? How many people should be hired for each service? How much building space? How many vehicles? Price of utilities?
All of this costs money. Government should be paying its bills on time and in full. It needs to raise money to pay the bills. How are we going to raise that money? Fishing licenses and traffic fines aren’t going to do the full job. Taxes is the primary answer.
This is where the difference between conservatives and liberals comes in. Conservatives want to see fewer government services (or so they say, government usually grows under Republican administrations) and don’t mind raising the deficit and debt. Liberals want to see more services and would prefer to pay off the debt. So liberals don’t mind raising taxes to do these things, they are against tax cuts on this principal.
原本的问题是：“如果减税意味着少缴税，为什么人们反对减税？”
因为他们喜欢政府提供的东西。
税率得到了所有的关注，但它只是等式中较小的一部分。更重要的是“我们希望政府做什么以及在做到什么程度”的问题。我们的政府是否提供 A、B、C服务？如果是，那么各自多少钱？每项服务应雇用多少人？建筑面积多少？有多少辆车？公共服务的价格是多少？
所有这些都需要花钱。政府应该按时足额支付账单。它需要筹集资金来支付账单。我们将如何筹集这笔钱？钓鱼执法和交通罚款并不能起到全部作用，税收才是首要答案。
这就是保守派和自由派之间的区别所在。保守派希望看到更少的政府服务（或者说，政府通常在共和党政府的领导下发展），并且不介意增加赤字和债务。 自由党希望看到更多的服务，并且更愿意偿还债务。因此，自由主义者不介意通过增税来做这些事情，但他们反对在这一原则上减税。
Because the loss of tax revenue will either result in undesirable cuts in government services or unsustainable deficits. The cost far exceeds the benefit.
It's the same reason why you don't say, “OMG, I got this ad for a credit card that offers me a FREE frappucino! Why not get that?” You don't get it because you review the interest rate, annual fees, and other features and determine it isn't worth it.
People are against tax cuts who look at the cost/benefit picture and see long-term effects that they don't find acceptable.
因为税收收入的损失要么会导致政府服务的不必要的削减，要么会导致不可持续的赤字，成本远远超过收益。
这也是为什么你不会说：“天啊，我收到了这则信用卡的广告，它为我提供免费的星冰乐！为什么不用信用卡呢？你之所以不用，是因为你查看了利率、年费和其他功能，并确定它不值得。
人们反对减税，他们着眼于成本/效益，并看到了他们认为的不可接受的长期影响。
People may be against tax cuts but given a choice everyone pays the lower tax.
In 2000, Massachusetts did a referendum for lowering the tax rate from 5.9% to 5.0%. It passed 55% to 45%.
Because so many people opposed the tax decrease, we have a check box in our tax returns, whether we want to pay 5.9% or the current rate of 5.1%.
The state gets about 2 Mn tax returns and only around 100 or so returns pay the higher 5.9%. These 100 odd people also earn about $20,000 in average, so the voluntary higher tax payment is less than $100,000.
Massachusetts is famously liberal blue state but none of the Democratic congressmen or the famous Senator Liz Warren pay the 5.9%.
人们可能反对减税，但如果有得选，每个人都会缴纳较低的税。
2000年，马萨诸塞州举行全民公投，将税率从5.9%降至5.0%。这条法案以55: 45通过了。
因为有很多人反对减税，所以我们的纳税申报单上有一个复选框，是要支付 5.9% 还是目前的 5.1%。
该州收到大约200万份纳税申报表，只有大约100份纳税申报表支付较高的5.9%。这100多人的平均收入也约为2万美元，因此自愿缴纳的较高税款不到10万美元。
马萨诸塞州是著名的自由派蓝州，但民主党国会议员或著名参议员莉兹·沃伦都没有缴纳5.9% 的税。
Tax cuts under George Bush were the first tax cuts while we were at war. It was irresponsible and resulted in high deficits. Remember the Republican Party complaining that we were pushing payment of the deficits to our children and grand children. These tax cuts will be worst resulting in higher deficits, and further redistribution of capital to the very rich.
乔治·布什领导下的减税是战争期间的第一次减税。这是不负责任的行为，并导致了高额赤字。请记住，共和党抱怨我们正在将赤字支付给我们的子孙后代。这些减税将是最糟糕的结果，导致赤字增加，资本进一步重新分配给富人。
The American tax cuts would be great if they were implemented on a sliding scale. The cuts should end for those earning more than $100k.
More money for consumers equals more demand.
Now that would make America great again.
如果美国的减税措施能够按滑动比例实施，那就太好了。对于收入超过10万美元的人来说，减税应该结束。
对消费者来说，更多的钱等于更多的需求。
现在这将使美国再次伟大。
In looking at the proposed tax cuts, first you need to ask why now a good time when 8 years ago, when our economy was facing its biggest depression threatening crises in a century and deficit spending would have had significant impact on stimulating a flagging economy, the same people pushing for a crazy balanced budget amendment, now think cutting taxes and creating a deliberate increase in deb is a good idea. Fact: the optimum time for stimulating the economy with deficits is on the wane. The only thing that has changed is who they believe will get credit for an improving economy.
Next, who will benefit? Last time we had massive tax cuts “W” was in office, we had a budget surplus that was declared immoral. Taxes were cut on the rich so that everyone could share in the trickle down benefits and we could have deficits. With that and the unfunded wars, the economy was brought to its knees. This time they are debating who and if will get small benefits. It goes without saying where the large benefits will flow. The problem with this is money in the hand of the poor and middle class stimulates the economy much more than in the hands of the rich.
So what is it really about? How do you go about cutting services? Cut taxes and then just say we can no longer afford any services, so we will have no choice but have a pay as you go society with minimal public owned assets. Want to go some where, pay a toll to the company that owns the roads; no parks, private land; health care, not a right; self determination and survival of the fittest.
If you want to see how well it works, look at the miracle they created in Kansas. Slashed business taxes and created virtually no new jobs, but more business profits and a broke government.
在考虑拟议的减税措施时，首先你需要问：为什么现在是一个好时机？而八年前，当时我们的经济正面临一个世纪以来最严重的萧条威胁危机，而赤字支出将对刺激萎靡不振的经济产生重大影响，那些推动疯狂平衡预算修正案的人现在认为减税和故意增加债务是一个好主意？事实是：用赤字刺激经济的最佳时机已经到来。唯一改变的是他们认为谁会因经济改善而受到赞扬。
接下来，谁会受益？上次我们大规模减税时，我们有预算盈余，这被认为是不道德的。对富人减税，这样每个人都可以分享涓滴效应，而我们可能会出现赤字。由于这种情况和没有资金支持的战争，经济陷入了瘫痪。这次他们正在争论谁以及是否会获得小利益。不言而喻，巨大的利益将流向何处。问题是穷人和中产阶级手中的钱比富人手中的钱对经济的刺激作用更大。
那么它到底是关于什么的呢？您如何削减服务？减税，然后就说我们再也负担不起任何服务，所以我们别无选择，只能拥有一个公共资产最少的现收现付社会。想去某个地方，就向拥有道路的公司缴纳过路费；没有公园、私人土地；医疗保健不是一项权利；一切自决和适者生存。
如果你想看看它有多有效，看看他们在堪萨斯州创造的奇迹。削减商业税并几乎没有创造新的就业机会，但创造了更多的商业利润和破产的政府。
Most likely, that tax cut isn’t a tax cut.
The Federal govt may cut taxes. But, it then transfers less money to state and local governments and individuals. State and local govt then have to raise taxes or impose user fees (eg, higher bridge tolls, higher entry fees for parks, etc. )
Those tax cuts aren’t tax cuts. They are redistributions if the tax burden
A tax cut is a tax cut if and only if the all-in tax burden (including user fees - don’t fall for that trick that it isn’t a tax if it isn’t called a tax) goes down across all levels of govt.
Every tax cut dating back to Reagan has failed that test
最有可能的是，“减税”并不是真正的减税。
联邦政府可能会减税。但是，它向州、地方政府和个人转移的资金却减少了。然后，州和地方政府必须提高税收或征收使用费（例如，更高的桥梁通行费、更高的公园入场费等）
这样的减税并不是减税。如果税收负担增加，它们就是再分配。
当且仅当所有级别的总税收负担（包括使用费——不要上当，如果不称为税就不是税）下降时，减税才是减税。
自里根以来的每一次减税都未能通过这一测试。
Why are people against tax cuts if it means paying less tax?
Because it also means higher deficits and debt. A continuing degradation of our infrastructure. Increased risk to the 50% of our population in the lower economic scale. Little to no benefit to the country or most people in it.
如果减税意味着少缴税款，为什么人们反对减税呢？
因为这也意味着更高的赤字和债务。我们的基础设施持续退化，经济规模较小的 50% 人口面临的风险增加，对国家或大多数人民来说几乎没有任何好处。
It equally means running up more national debt. Also, as proposed only the rich and Corporations will significantly benefit
这同样意味着增加更多的国债。此外，正如提议的那样，只有富人和企业才能显著受益。
Please look at the bottom line of U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time the one titles “liability per taxpayer”.
That is our legacy to our children and grandchildren.
Edit - some people view the greater good of society as a greater good. To paraphrase/quote Spock from Star Trek - “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few”
请查看美国国债时钟的底线，标题为“每个纳税人的责任”。
这是我们留给子孙的遗产。
编辑-有些人将社会的更大利益视为更大的利益。引用《星际迷航》中斯波克的话——“多数人的需求超过少数人的需求”
Because taxes buy services, and people like to have services available in case they ever need them.
Because taxes buy services, and (some) people feel that serving less fortunate people is a desirable aim of society.
Because cutting taxes without cutting services results in deficits, which burdens our children with debt.
Because cutting taxes is the honey in the trap of dismantling government services that conservatives find burdensome. Once taxes are cut, we cannot afford whichever services are politically out of favor.
因为税收购买服务，而人们喜欢在需要时获得服务。
因为税收购买服务，并且一些人认为，向不幸的人提供服务是社会的理想目标。
因为减税而不削减服务会导致赤字，从而给我们的孩子带来债务负担。
因为减税是废除保守派认为繁重的政府服务的陷阱中的诱饵。一旦减税，我们就无法承担任何政治上不受欢迎的服务。
here is a deal: You pay $100 less in taxes but you pay $1 every-time you use the road.
I assume you have a job and have to use the road to get there meaning you pay about $400 t get there. Does that sound like a good deal or would you rather not have the tax cut?
Now in most cases the $1 ism not as obvious. Probably your road is still free but you will ruin your tires due to the pot holes, or you spend 1h longer in traffic every day…. But in the end you paying for the tax cuts one way or the other.
交易是这样的：你可以少付100美元的税款，但每次使用这条道路时需要支付1美元。
我假设你有工作并且必须走公路才能到达那里，这意味着你要支付大约400美元才能到达那里。这听起来是一笔不错的交易吗？还是说你宁愿不减税？
现在，在大多数情况下，1美元主义并不那么明显。也许你的道路仍然是免费的，但你会因为坑洼而毁掉你的轮胎，或者你每天在交通上多花1小时……但最终你还是会以某种方式为减税买单。
原创翻译：龙腾网 https://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Oversimplified:
Less taxes equals less services provided.
Do I really want EMS and fire and police taking three hours to get to me when I cut a foot off with a lawnmower accidentally? Nope.
省流版：
税收减少意味着提供的服务减少。
当我不小心被割草机割断腿时，我真的希望 EMS、消防和警察花三个小时来救我吗？绝对不是。
Only some people are against people paying less taxes, most are not. Those who do (typically liberal) have a belief that the state should bear a greater responsibility in individual wellbeing than the individual themselves. That’s the primary difference between liberals/democrats and conservatives/republicans.
The bigger the government the more inefficient it is, and therefore the cost of delivering services is high. Government needs lots of money, and the primary method government collects money is through taxes. Democrats believe that when you reduce taxes you decrease government revenue. This goes against the reality proven by one of their political superheroes, JFK, because when he cut income taxes in the 1960s overall revenue actually increased. This phenomenon was replicated in the 1980s when income taxes were again cut after a steady rise since the Kennedy cuts.
How does this happen? When taxes are cut people have more money to spend or invest. The result is more money changing hands or being available for business capital. This expands the tax base and more people paying less eventually exceeds less people paying more. It’s the reverse effect of when a town goes into decline after the factory that supports all the jobs in the town packs up and leaves.
只有一些人反对少缴税款，大多数人则反对。那些持此观点的人（通常是自由派）相信，国家应该比个人本身对个人福祉承担更大的责任。这是自由派/民主党和保守派/共和党之间的主要区别。
政府规模越大，效率就越低，因此提供服务的成本就越高。政府需要大量资金，而政府收钱的主要方法是通过税收。民主党人认为，减税就会减少政府收入。这与他们的政治超级英雄之一肯尼迪所证明的现实背道而驰，因为当他在20世纪60年代削减所得税时，总体收入实际上增加了。这种现象在20世纪80年代再次出现，所得税自肯尼迪减税以来稳步上升，随后再次被削减。
这是怎么发生的？当减税时，人们有更多的钱可以消费或投资，结果是更多的资金易手或可用于商业资本。这扩大了税基，最终少缴税的人超过了多缴税的人。这是当一个城镇在提供该镇所有工作岗位的工厂打包离开后陷入衰落时的反向效应。