评论
打印
Finance and economics
金融版块
Tax in America
美国的税收
A tale of two profits
两种利润的故事
A minimum tax on companies seems alluring, but is likely to disappoint
对公司征收最低税似乎很诱人，但实施起来可能令人失望
ON THE FACE of things, it seems both absurd and unfair that large American companies regularly whittle down their tax bills, taking advantage of every loophole on offer.
从表面上看，美国大公司经常利用任何一个漏洞削减税单，似乎既荒谬又不公平。
One study found that at least 55 big companies incurred no federal taxes at all on their profits in 2020.
一项研究发现，2020年，至少有55家大公司获得的利润是完全没有缴纳联邦税的。
A proposal being discussed as The Economist went to press, and as the Democratic Party scrambled to fund its social-spending package, seems to offer a popular solution: a minimum tax on corporate earnings as reported to shareholders, rather than as massaged down when reported to tax collectors.
在《经济学人》付印时，民主党正忙于为其社会支出计划筹划资金，一项正在讨论中的提案似乎提供了一个受欢迎的解决方案：对向股东报告的公司收益征收最低税率，而不是向税务人员报告时被篡改的数据征收最低税率。
The structure of the minimum tax looks simple enough.
最低税率的结构看起来也很简单。
Companies that report more than $1bn in profits to shareholders would pay a tax of at least 15% on those profits.
向股东报告利润超过10亿美元的公司将为这些利润支付至少15%的税。
The levy would be explicitly aimed at firms such as Amazon, which had an effective federal income-tax rate of just 4.3% from 2018 to 2020, far below the statutory rate of 21%, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a left-leaning think-tank.
根据左倾智库税收与经济政策研究所的数据，这项税收将明确针对亚马逊等公司，从2018年到2020年，亚马逊的有效联邦所得税税率仅为4.3%，远低于21%的法定税率。
All told, the new tax would apply to some 200 big companies.
总而言之，新税将适用于大约200家大公司。
Politically, the minimum corporate tax has much going for it.
在政治上讲，最低公司税有很多好处。
Angus King, an independent senator who is an architect of the proposal, believes it could raise $400bn over ten years.
该提案的设计者之一、独立参议员安格斯·金认为，该提案可以在十年内筹集4000亿美元。
That would help fund the bill that is the cornerstone of President Joe Biden’s “Build Back Better” agenda, featuring about $2trn in spending over the next decade (equivalent to less than 1% of projected GDP during that time).
这将有助于为这项法案提供资金，该法案是美国总统乔·拜登“重建更好”议程的基石，计划在未来十年支出约2万亿美元(不到同期预计GDP的1%)。
The corporate minimum is also less controversial than another new levy the Democrats were rowing over, a tax on unrealised capital gains that would target 700 billionaires.
与民主党正在讨论的另一项新税种相比，企业最低税率的争议性也较小，这项税种针对的是700名亿万富翁的未实现资本利得税。
Democrats had hoped at first to rely on a general increase in the corporate-tax rate to raise revenues.
民主党人一开始希望依靠普遍提高企业税率来增加收入。
But Kyrsten Sinema, a Democratic senator from Arizona whose support is needed for the bill to pass, opposed the wider increase and has instead backed the minimum tax as “commonsense”.
但来自亚利桑那州民主党参议员基尔斯滕·西内马反对更大范围的增税，转而支持最低税率，称其为“常识”，他的支持对该法案的通过很重要。
The idea also has the approval of Joe Manchin, a Democratic senator from West Virginia, whose vote could prove decisive.
这一想法也得到了西弗吉尼亚州民主党参议员乔·曼钦的同意，他的投票可能是决定性的。
The economic rationale is, however, more dubious.
然而，经济理由则更令人怀疑。
Despite its apparently simple structure, it would introduce more complexity into an already bloated tax code.
尽管它的结构看起来很简单，但它会给本已臃肿的税法更加复杂。
Companies would face two parallel systems, calculating their liabilities first under regular tax rules and then under the minimum-tax regime.
公司将面临两个平行的体系，首先根据常规税收规则计算负债，然后再根据最低税收制度计算负债。
An earlier version of a minimum corporate tax, repealed under President Donald Trump in 2017, was so onerous that in some years compliance costs outstripped tax collections.
唐纳德·特朗普总统于2017年废除的早期版本的最低公司税非常繁重，以至于在某些年份，合规成本超过了税收。
The gap between taxable income and book income as reported to shareholders exists for a reason.
应纳税收入和向股东报告的账面收入之间存在差距是有原因的。
When, say, a company builds a factory, financial rules require it to spread the cost over many years based on depreciation, letting investors know the value of its assets.
比方说，当一家公司建造工厂时，财务规则要求它根据折旧将成本分摊到多年，让投资者知道其资产的价值。
Tax rules, however, let firms report costs when incurred.
然而，税收规则允许公司在发生成本时报告成本。
That lowers tax bills when investments are made and encourages more spending.
这在投资时降低了税收，并鼓励了更多的支出。
Calculating minimum taxes based on book, rather than taxable, income would lead to two perverse outcomes.
根据账面收入（而不是应税收入）计算最低税额将导致两种反常的结果。
First, powers over tax would, in effect, be granted to the Financial Accounting Standards Board, an unelected body that governs how companies report income.
首先，税收方面的权力实际上将被授予财务会计准则委员会，这是一个未经选举产生的机构，负责管理公司如何报告收入。
Changes in its standards would lead to changes in taxation.
其标准的变化将导致税收的变化。
Second, companies would have less scope for deducting investment expenses, and hence might pare back capital spending.
其次，公司扣除投资费用的空间会变小，因此可能会削减资本支出。
Mr Biden, though, does not want that to happen, so the proposal maintains several deductions, including for spending on clean energy and on research and development—one of the provisions that may have allowed Amazon to lower its taxes.
然而，拜登并不希望这种情况发生，因此该提案保留了几项减免条件，包括清洁能源和研发方面的支出——这可能是允许亚马逊降低税收的条款之一。
Companies, for their part, will adapt.
就公司而言，他们将会适应。
By turning more to debt instead of equity markets for financing, for instance, they could increase their interest expenses, which would eat into both their book and taxable incomes.
例如，更多地转向债券市场而不是股票市场融资，可能会增加利息支出，这将侵蚀它们的账面收入和应税收入。
The upshot is that the minimum corporate tax may end up raising far less revenue than its proponents believe, while also skewing investment incentives—and making a messy tax code even more complicated.
其结果是，最低公司税最终可能比其支持者认为的要少得多，同时也扭曲了投资动机——使混乱的税法变得更加复杂。
